BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (21 February), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 6 March.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading  opposed and deferred until Tuesday  6 March  at  Seven  o’clock (Standing Order No. 20).

Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 6 March (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Libya

Nicola Blackwood: What support his Department is providing to the Libyan Government.

William Hague: We are working closely with the transitional Government to provide stabilisation assistance across a range of issues, including policing, security and prison reform, as well as on projects to promote youth and women’s political participation and human rights. We have also worked to ensure that Libya’s assets are available to fund its own reconstruction.

Nicola Blackwood: During a recent round table on women in Libya organised by the all-party group on women, peace and security and attended by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), we heard about the importance of the DDRRR—disarmament, demobilisation, repatriation,
	resettlement and reintegration—process of integrating the militias, which helps not only the men but the women engaged in the uprising by, for example, redefining “fighter” to include women. Will the Minister outline what support the UK Government are giving to the Libyan Government in developing their DDRRR plan to ensure that it addresses the concerns of women in post-conflict Libya?

William Hague: This is a very important issue. From the beginning, including in the very first visit that I made to Benghazi in June last year, during the conflict, we have gone out of our way to support the involvement of women in the transition in Libya. We are working closely with all the relevant organisations on this. We co-funded the first women’s convention in Tripoli in November. We are about to start a six-month programme of support to promote women’s and youth participation in the political process in Libya. I am pleased that the election law that was approved earlier this month will provide, in effect, for a certain proportion of the seats in the national congress to go to women.

Jonathan Edwards: On 21 February, Gareth Montgomery-Johnson, a freelance cameraman, and several others were arrested in Tripoli by the Saraya Swehli militia. Despite repeated requests, the militia have refused to transfer Mr Johnson and his colleagues to the Libyan Government or to provide access to Human Rights Watch. His next of kin, who are constituents of mine, are increasingly concerned about the situation. Will the Secretary of State assure them that the Foreign Office will do everything in its power to release my constituent from militia captivity?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the position of his constituent. We are aware of the situation. The embassy in Tripoli is doing everything that it can to assist. It is important that consular access is given to his constituent and to one other person involved, and so, while we have not yet achieved everything that we want on this, we are continuing to work on it.

Human Trafficking

Justin Tomlinson: What steps he is taking to work with his EU counterparts on tackling human trafficking.

Jeremy Browne: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office work closely with other EU member states to try to prevent human trafficking. Three of the countries recognised in the Government’s human trafficking strategy—Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia—are EU member states. We are working with partners in these countries to help to combat trafficking at source.

Justin Tomlinson: I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for his work in raising awareness of modern-day slavery. Given the international nature of human trafficking, what support has the Minister provided to the European Commission-backed project, led by the Human Trafficking Foundation, to set up a parliamentary network on
	trafficking that aims to promote and strengthen a network of parliamentarians and businesses against trafficking in human beings throughout all EU member states?

Jeremy Browne: I share my hon. Friend’s abhorrence of this terrible crime. We are keen to work through the Commission and through other bodies in the European Union, at Parliament-to-Parliament level, and at Government-to-Government level. For example, we share skills, knowledge and experience, and fund projects that help countries to tackle the problem at source.

Tony Lloyd: The whole House will share the Minister’s abhorrence of this form of modern slavery. Will he give an absolute guarantee that nothing that this Government negotiate at the European level will make it more difficult for women, in particular, who have been trafficked to be given proper refuge in this country and that nothing will give them an incentive to continue in slavery rather than risk being sent back to their country of origin to be re-trafficked?

Jeremy Browne: Our intention always is to give paramount importance to the victims of such crime. When we negotiate in the European Union and elsewhere, we try to give those victims the most protection that we can.

Falkland Islanders

Sheryll Murray: What support the Government are providing to the Falkland Islanders; and if he will make a statement.

Jeremy Browne: The Government support the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. That support takes many forms, from the military deterrent on the islands to the work of our diplomatic network to promote their rights in the region and more widely. We do all that with the full endorsement of the Falkland Islands Government.

Sheryll Murray: What discussions have taken place with Argentina to encourage it to rejoin the south Atlantic fisheries commission, which was set up in 1990 to facilitate action on conservation issues of mutual concern around the Falkland Islands?

Jeremy Browne: It is a source of regret to us that the many fruitful negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina in the 1990s on this topic were effectively suspended in 2007, when the Argentines withdrew their co-operation. We want to work closely, co-operatively and in a friendly spirit with Argentina on a range of issues, including this one. It is a source of regret to us that that has not been possible in recent years.

John Spellar: The whole House and, indeed, the country will be outraged at reports that two British cruise liners, the Adonia and the Star Princess, were refused entry to a port in southern Argentina. What representations have the Government made to the Argentine authorities and to the international maritime authorities about this completely unjustified action?

Jeremy Browne: We make frequent representations to the Argentines and to many other countries in south America. It is a source of sadness and frustration to us that people who are on holiday and who want to further relations between ourselves and Argentina at a people-to-people level are not able to do so. We enter the relationship with Argentina in a spirit of friendship and it is a source of sadness to us that it does not always do the same.

Independent Judiciary (Hungary)

Andrew Miller: What representations he has made to the Hungarian Government on state control of the judiciary in that country.

Henry Bellingham: An independent judiciary is necessary for the preservation of democracy and fundamental freedoms. We have urged Hungary to consider the implications of its new laws and to continue working with the European Commission to ensure that those laws are consistent with EU norms.

Andrew Miller: I welcome that response from the Minister. There have been suggestions in the media over the past few days that progress is being made at the EU level. Will he spell out what that progress is? Will he give the House an assurance that this and the other outstanding issues with Hungary’s new constitution will be pursued vigorously by this Government?

Henry Bellingham: On 17 January, the European Commission released its analysis of the incompatibility of specific elements of the new Hungarian constitution with EU treaty obligations. Letters of formal notice were sent to the Hungarian Government as the first stage of EU infringement proceedings.

David Davies: Notwithstanding the EU’s concerns, is it not the case that the vast majority of Hungarians voted for Fidesz at the last election? We should remember that that party is led by a man who was at the forefront of the battle against the socialist dictatorship in Hungary, a country in which I have a great personal interest.

Henry Bellingham: I certainly respect the will of the Hungarian electorate. However, we strongly urge the Hungarian authorities to consider the implications of the new laws for political balance and to work with the Commission to ensure that the laws are consistent with EU norms.

EU Economic Conditions

Claire Perry: What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of economic conditions in the EU.

William Hague: The agreement on a second rescue package for Greece last week is encouraging for Greece and the European economy. The crisis in the eurozone is having a chilling effect on growth across Europe.
	The Government are arguing vigorously for EU action to promote growth by deepening the single market, boosting trade and cutting red tape.

Claire Perry: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what his Department is doing to improve the economic conditions right here in Britain? Are we using our global network of embassies and business contacts to promote British exports, especially those of small companies?

William Hague: Yes, we absolutely are. The prosperity of the country is one of our key objectives. My hon. Friend may have noticed that our exports to India, Turkey, Brazil and other emerging economies went up sharply in 2011. That is very important, given that the eurozone economy is flat and that our exports have declined. The Foreign Office is highly active in helping businesses, including small businesses, to seek out new export markets.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the preparations that are being made in the event of a default by the Greek Government and the possible collapse of the euro?

William Hague: We have contingency plans for many eventualities in the world, and I ensure that they are fully up to date. The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not go into more detail about those plans, because doing so can create a greater expectation that they are going to happen, but we are prepared for any eventuality.

John Baron: I suggest that EU politicians are failing to recognise that the eurozone is a dead man walking. Given the effective suspension of democracy in at least two countries and the deepening democratic deficit across the eurozone, as politicians break the rules in order to save the euro and their dream of political union, why is Britain supporting the anti-democratic zeal of those politicians as they make worse this self-made crisis?

William Hague: To put it in a slightly more balanced way, I have pointed out for many years that one of the disadvantages of the euro is the loss of national sovereign decision making to the countries concerned. However, there is one flaw in my hon. Friend’s argument, which is that it is very clear that not only the representatives but, at the moment, the people of Greece choose to try to stay in the euro. That is the democratic choice that they are making, and we should support them in it if that is their choice.

Emma Reynolds: The European Union is our biggest trading partner, and a resolution to the eurozone crisis is clearly in our national interest. Given that our bilateral relationship with France is central to that, why is it being reported that the Prime Minister has refused to meet one of the leading presidential candidates, François Hollande, when he visits London tomorrow?

William Hague: Yes, the bilateral relationship with France is of great importance, and it is true that our co-operation, particularly on foreign and security policy, is the closest that it has been at any time since the second world war.
	Relations with France are very good and very close. Of course, the Prime Minister sometimes meets opposition leaders and sometimes does not, but I am not aware of governmental leaders across Europe taking a different approach from his.

Syria

Sajid Javid: What recent reports he has received on the security situation in Syria; and if he will make a statement.

David Evennett: What recent reports he has received on the security situation in Syria; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: I am horrified at the continued violence of the Syrian regime against its own people. We will use all diplomatic and economic means to bring an end to the violence. Those responsible for the shelling of homes, the execution of detainees, the killing of political opponents and the torture and rape of women and children must be held to account in the future.

Sajid Javid: Journalists in conflict zones risk their lives every day to bring us unbiased news, and that is why my condolences go to the family and friends of Marie Colvin. On that note, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the whereabouts of the wounded British journalist who was in Syria?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is quite right—the thoughts of much of the nation have been with the family and friends of Marie Colvin. I am happy to confirm, though, that the injured British journalist Paul Conroy is safely in Lebanon, where he is receiving full consular assistance. I pay tribute to journalists who ensure that the world is aware of the crimes that are being committed, which we are determined to document and seek justice for. Too many people have already lost their lives in Homs and elsewhere in Syria, and we will urge the Syrian regime to ensure both an end to the violence against civilians and safe access for humanitarian agencies.

David Evennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the UK’s initiative to help gather evidence of the crimes against humanity in Syria. Will he update the House on the progress of that important work, and can he confirm whether other nations and international organisations are involved as well?

William Hague: This work is progressing. We are sending teams to border areas and ensuring that people can come to a single documentation hub to bring together the evidence of the crimes that are being committed. I spoke about that at the Tunis meeting of more than 60 nations last Friday, to encourage other nations to join in that initiative or take initiatives or their own, and I believe that other nations will be doing so.

Ben Bradshaw: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Turkey, the Arab countries and our NATO allies about the idea of creating a safe haven in north-western Syria?

William Hague: I have had many discussions over the last week with Turkey and Arab nations on the margins of our Somalia conference, in Tunis and at other meetings. That idea has been debated—in public, never mind in private—but the difficulty of establishing safe areas without agreement with the country concerned is considerable. Without such agreement, military force will be required—and sufficient military to force to be wholly effective, because one of the worst things we could do, I believe, is to tell people that they might be safe and be unable to provide that safety to them. None of those discussions, therefore, have led to the idea being adopted in the international community.

Douglas Alexander: The Opposition welcome the fact that the EU yesterday announced further sanctions on Syria. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that those sanctions included travel bans on a further seven close associates of President Assad? If that is correct, does he agree that the public naming of many more individuals in that way, specifically including military commanders presently engaged in murder and slaughter in Homs, would help to sharpen the choice for individual members of the security apparatus?

William Hague: Yes—I agree in general. We adopted a number of measures yesterday in Brussels, including sanctions on the Central Bank of Syria. As the right hon. Gentleman says, we also extended by another seven names the list, which is now more than 150 strong, of individuals and entities on whom we have restrictions, travel bans and asset freezes. We are entirely open to extending that list further, but we of course take care to ensure that we are sure of our ground and that those individuals are actually complicit in the regime’s repression. As further evidence accumulates, we will certainly want to add to that list.

Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unpalatable fact is that we do not have many options in relation to Syria? Does he also agree that one option worth following is to persuade the Russians to give up their unquestioning support for Syria on the ground that it is deeply damaging to their long-term interests and should cease? Does he remember the impact on Milosevic and Serbia of the withdrawal of Russian support?

William Hague: My right hon. and learned Friend is right that that would be a desirable piece of persuasion to accomplish. I have had discussions with the Russian Foreign Minister, including at length after the vetoing of our Security Council resolution, and it must be said that the Russians are not yet persuaded of that position. However, I hope others will join in that persuasion. I have spoken in the last hour to the new UN and Arab League special envoy, Kofi Annan, who is charged with promoting a political process and solution. I hope that he will bring his persuasive powers to bear on both Russia and China.

Rushanara Ali: As the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate, an estimated 70,000 Syrians are fleeing to Jordan and many more to Lebanon. What steps has the Foreign Secretary taken to put pressure on the Syrian regime to allow humanitarian assistance and to enable civilians to leave the country?

William Hague: It is a constant cry of the international community, including among the more than 60 nations that met in Tunis on Friday, that humanitarian access needs to be granted, but the regime, which, in the view of the UN commission of inquiry, has committed crimes against humanity, is insensitive even to those demands for humanitarian access or for pauses each day in the conflict—it has refused to do that. We are doing our best to send humanitarian assistance. The UK has provided assistance that will amount to tens of thousands of food rations and other emergency supplies, and we are increasingly co-ordinating our work with other countries.

European Court of Justice

George Eustice: What progress has been made in selecting a replacement for the UK’s judge at the European Court of Justice, following the end of the incumbent’s appointment in 2012.

William Hague: We expect to be in a position to nominate a candidate for this position within the next month. The successful candidate should be able to take up the position when the term of the incumbent judge expires later this year.

George Eustice: Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia involve their national Parliaments in the process of selecting the judges whom they send to the ECJ. Given the power that the ECJ can have on this country’s legal system, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to involve the House in any future appointments?

William Hague: We have improved the nomination procedure by advertising the position publicly and subjecting applicants to interview by an independent panel of experts, prior to ministerial clearance. My hon. Friend raises a legitimate point. As things stand, parliamentary decisions on this matter are inconsistent with existing constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, and any change to the current procedure would, of course, set a precedent with wider implications. That can be debated in the House. I am conscious of the interest that the House takes and commit to keeping it updated on the progress made.

West Bank

Anne McGuire: What support his Department is providing to private sector initiatives in the west bank.

Alistair Burt: Our private sector initiative in the west bank and Gaza supports about 500 companies. We attribute perhaps £50 million to sales and exports, and also support about 2,200 jobs.

Anne McGuire: Last year, I visited Rawabi, a new Palestinian city being built near Ramallah. It is the biggest private sector project in Palestinian history and is being facilitated by the Portland Trust with the Palestinian Authority. Does the Minister agree that economic progress will be an important component of peace? Will he
	update the House on the recent package of economic measures reportedly offered by the Israeli Government in response to the Quartet?

Alistair Burt: I do indeed agree with the right hon. Lady. The economic development of the west bank has been a significant feature of the past few years, coupled with security improvements, and it is a measure of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that this has continued. We want the discussions between the Israelis and Palestinians that were started in Amman to continue. A package of support is part of those continuing discussions, and there is no doubt that a comprehensive settlement will be of benefit to both the Palestinian and the Israeli economies.

Pauline Latham: Commerce, restaurants and hotels continue to provide the highest number of jobs in the west bank, according to a recent United Nations Relief and Works Agency report on the Palestinian labour market. Given that these sectors stand to benefit directly from a future Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, will the Foreign Secretary reiterate the importance of the Palestinian Authority returning to direct peace negotiations without preconditions?

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are talking about private sector initiatives in the west bank, not about the peace process more widely. I want a brief reply from the Minister, and then we will move on.

Alistair Burt: The health of the private sector economy is a component part of the all-round package for the future of the Palestinian Authority and Israel to which my hon. Friend alludes. There is no doubt that a comprehensive settlement will benefit both the state and private sector economies, and I am pleased that she raised the matter.

Arms Trade Treaty

Duncan Hames: What recent progress has been made in negotiations on an international arms trade treaty; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Burt: The United Kingdom remains committed to a robust and effective arms trade treaty. The recent preparatory conference in New York had a successful outcome as far as the Government and leading non-governmental organisations were concerned, and we look forward to the full negotiating conference in July.

Duncan Hames: The UK delegation clearly proved crucial in making progress at the conference. Throughout the Arab spring, Governments in the region have used policing and security equipment, including tear gas and batten rounds, against peaceful protesters, sometimes with lethal effect. Will the Minister give his strong support to a genuinely bullet-proof treaty that includes those items?

Alistair Burt: We have said clearly that we want a comprehensive arms trade treaty, which would include all conventional weapons, including small arms and
	ammunition. The precise details of the treaty have yet to be negotiated. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments about the noticeable support of NGOs. I particularly thank Amnesty International for its recent comment on the preparatory conference. It said that
	“the UK championed our right to be in the room during final negotiations”.
	That is a measure of our relationship with NGOs in support of a robust and effective treaty.

Denis MacShane: Mr Speaker, you and the Minister will recall that one year ago I asked an urgent question on Bahrain, when the House was shocked to learn that we were still exporting arms to the country used in the repression of its citizens. Today, people are still locked up in prison, and Amnesty reports hundreds, dozens, scores of political prisoners and tear gas being thrown into confined spaces. It is just as brutal as ever it was, yet we have resumed arms sales to Bahrain. Again, may I ask the Minister and the Government to suspend arms sales to these repressive regimes until a political and peaceful solution has been found?

Alistair Burt: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at precisely what has been sold to Bahrain, he will find that licences for any items that could be used for internal repression have been refused. Body armour, sporting targets and rifles, and naval cannon have been sold, but these things cannot be used for internal repression. We support the reform process that is under way through the independent commission that is working in Bahrain, and we support all political parties in working towards a settlement and reforms there.

UN Commission on the Status of Women

Diana Johnson: What his priorities are for the 56th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities is currently in New York attending the commission. She will be pressing for more progress on meeting the millennium development goals, tackling violence and discrimination against women, and challenging the way women are represented by the global media.

Diana Johnson: Given that the UN Commission on the Status of Women is focusing on the rights of women in rural areas, will the Minister say what action his Government are taking to encourage the participation of women in rural Afghanistan?

Henry Bellingham: We are publishing our national action plan today, and Ministers at the Department for International Development have made it clear, in DFID’s “Strategic vision for girls and women”, that stressing the importance of empowering rural girls and women is essential for global prosperity, achieving the MDGs and ensuring safer and more stable rural communities.

Somalia

Mark Lancaster: What recent reports he has received on the political situation in Somalia; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: At the London conference on Somalia, the international community agreed on the need to inject new momentum into the political process, using the Garowe principles to chart a route to a broad-based constituent assembly, chosen by the Somali people, that will determine a new and representative Government for Somalia.

Mark Lancaster: There is growing concern among British Somalis that the sense of isolation experienced by those who chew the drug khat is being exploited by al-Shabaab to recruit in the UK. Now that the UK is completely out of step with Europe, as the only country not to have banned khat, will the Foreign Secretary raise the matter with the Home Secretary as a matter of urgency?

William Hague: Khat is certainly quite popular among many Somali people. Indeed, the only other bit of air activity I saw when I visited Mogadishu four weeks ago were planes arriving to deliver khat. However, I will certainly look at the point my hon. Friend raises and discuss it with the Home Secretary, as he suggests.

Ian Lucas: First, may I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his team on his work on the Somalia conference? As the final communiqué of the conference says:
	“We called on all those willing to reject violence to join the Djibouti peace process.”
	How will the Government reach out and engage with those individuals to facilitate the broader base for the Somali Government that is necessary to make progress?

William Hague: All the decisions that were made and set out in the communiqué at the end of the Somalia conference are to be taken forward by different authorities, and in this case by the authorities in Somalia, through the creation of a new constituent assembly and, then, a more legitimate and representative Parliament. That is a process that is there to be engaged with by people who want to be part of a peace process and want now to transform the position of their country. There will be some who are irreconcilable and wedded to violence, which is why the parallel agreement on expanding the funding of the AMISOM—African Union Mission in Somalia—forces is also important. This process is to be taken forward in Somalia, by Somalis, under the Garowe principles.

Peter Tapsell: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and the whole of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on their remarkable diplomatic and organisational achievement in convening such a widely attended conference? With an estimated 600,000 Somali refugees now living in Kenya, we now have an unusually valuable opportunity to ensure that our overseas aid expenditure goes on resettling them in their own country, before they unsettle Kenya.

William Hague: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. The conference was well supported by other nations, which were delighted with the outcome. We have received stronger diplomatic support, and a stronger welcome around the world, for this than for any other diplomatic initiative that I can recall in recent years. That in itself is welcome and shows the commitment of the international community to this matter. We do indeed put a great deal of our humanitarian assistance in the direction that my right hon. Friend describes. We are the second-largest bilateral donor to the horn of Africa, for exactly the reason that he described.

Tom Clarke: Given the Government’s support for the new stability fund, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in order to retain confidence, humanitarian aid, including that for refugees, should be seen as something quite separate, necessary though it is?

William Hague: Yes, there are many uses for development funds. Much of this is humanitarian aid delivered through international agencies, and it was of extreme importance during the recent famine in the horn of Africa. Increasingly, we want to be able to provide stabilisation support, and the more stable each area of Somalia becomes, the more we will be able to do that. At the moment, 60% of such funding is going to Somaliland, because that has become a more stable area. So, yes, we make a distinction between different things.

Maldives

Caroline Nokes: What recent reports he has received on the political situation in the Maldives; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Burt: We remain concerned and unclear about the events of 7 February, in which power transferred from President Nasheed to his vice-president. We welcome an independent inquiry into those events, and we strongly support the efforts of the Indian Government and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group in seeking to secure early elections by the end of this year.

Caroline Nokes: I thank the Minister for that response. Will he tell us what progress the Governments have made on securing a date for those early elections, following the transfer of power?

Alistair Burt: So far, it has not been possible to secure a date from the new Administration. We remain absolutely convinced that an early date for elections—before the end of this year—is essential, and we will continue to support the efforts of Commonwealth and international partners to secure that.

Karen Lumley: Given that we have no firm date for elections in the Maldives, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will look closely at any invitations to the Queen’s diamond jubilee that might be sent to an unelected Commonwealth President?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is taking us down a particular route, but we will have to wait and see what happens. We are quite sure that we need answers from the Administration about what has happened. I am in regular contact with the former vice-president and with former President Nasheed, to whom I spoke less than a couple of hours ago. We are watching the situation extremely carefully, but there are still questions to be answered if the situation is to be regularised as far as the United Kingdom is concerned.

Human Rights

Sandra Osborne: What assessment he has made of the likely progress on human rights issues at (a) the next meeting of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee and (b) the 56th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Henry Bellingham: The advisory committee sat from 20 to 24 February, and we shall assess its recommendations when they are presented to the Human Rights Council. I said in an earlier reply that my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities was currently in New York pressing for progress on ending discrimination and violence against women.

Sandra Osborne: I thank the Minister for that response. What action are the Government taking to call on the Government of Sri Lanka to bring to justice those who are responsible for human rights abuses—particularly the many acts of violence against women—within a reasonable time scale?

Henry Bellingham: We obviously want the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the HRC recommendations, and we will be pushing them as hard as we can to do so. We will certainly ensure that the hon. Lady’s strong representations on the subject are passed on.

West Bank

Rob Wilson: What recent reports he has received on settlement activity in the west bank; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Burt: We receive regular reports from our posts in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem on settlement activity on the west bank. We were concerned to hear on 22 February of moves to legalise existing housing in Shvut Rachel and Shilo, both of which are deep within the west bank, but we acknowledge that those were the first such announcements this year.

Rob Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the campaign, supported by many of my constituents, to prevent the illegal demolitions in Silwan neighbourhood and the village of al-Aqaba? Will he pledge to continue to raise this important issue with his Israeli counterparts?

Alistair Burt: Yes, I spoke to the Israeli ambassador on 23 February about our concerns about the demolitions. We will continue to raise that issue. There have been a number of more positive moves over the past few months. I understand that some of the demolitions suggested in the Bedouin area of E1 have now been suspended, which we believe is good progress, as is the decision not to demolish the school at Khan al-Ahmar that I visited a short time ago.

Louise Ellman: Continued settlement activity on the west bank cannot be helpful in securing peace, but does the Minister believe that this is the only barrier to peace when the total withdrawal of all settlers in Gaza resulted in rule by Hamas and a continuing focus on attacks on Israeli settlements?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady rightly gives expression to the complexity of the situation in Israel and the difficulty surrounding the settlement issue, where one side sees it as an obstruction to progress but the other remembers what happened in relation to Gaza. The United Kingdom is firmly of the view that continued settlement expansion is an obstacle to peace, but that the confidence and security needed to create an overall settlement is essential between the two sides, which is why we welcome the continuing conversations in Oman between the Palestinian Authority and Israeli leaders.

Regional Security (Afghanistan)

Lilian Greenwood: What discussions he has had with his counterparts in Pakistan and other countries bordering Afghanistan on the effect on security of the draw-down of allied forces.

Alistair Burt: In the bilateral conversations with Pakistan and at the Istanbul conference in November last year, there was a focus on regional security in the full light of combat troop withdrawals. The long-term commitment of the international community to the security of Afghanistan will be confirmed at the NATO summit in Chicago in May.

Lilian Greenwood: The Minister will be aware of the humanitarian cost of previous fighting in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, including over 1 million displaced people. What assessment has he made of the impact on children and communities of the draw-down of allied forces, and what steps has he put in place to mitigate it?

Alistair Burt: The Department for International Development has a substantial programme to assist those in Afghanistan. We are acutely conscious of the issues affecting withdrawal. There will be a further conference in Tokyo this year where the long-term commitment on development will be considered. This conference can be seen in conjunction with those in Bonn and Chicago, as I mentioned, that will look comprehensively at the international community’s support for Afghanistan post-2014. Development issues and the protection of women and children are a key feature of that.

UK Exports

Elizabeth Truss: What steps he is taking to encourage the use of the UK's embassies and high commissions to support the promotion of UK exports.

Henry Bellingham: Supporting UK firms is at the heart of our diplomacy. Our missions overseas are taking a leading role in campaigns to win new business. We have a dynamic Trade Minister in my noble Friend Lord Green and a highly focused prosperity directorate at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are determined to play our part in driving up British exports.

Elizabeth Truss: Under the previous Government, the number of embassies we had overseas was reduced and exports flatlined as a proportion of gross domestic product, whereas in Germany exports have increased as a proportion of GDP—up to 50% now. What steps are the Government taking to open more embassies to help firms like Herbert Engineering in South West Norfolk, which plans to export 65% of all its goods next year to countries as far away as China and Dubai?

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is spot on. Our exports in 2011 were up 10.7%, while our trade deficit fell from £36.7 billion in 2010 to £28 billion in 2011. It is, of course, our intention to get into surplus. That is one reason why we are opening new missions around the world, including five in Africa. I am glad that my hon. Friend highlighted the excellent engineering business, R J Herbert Engineering, which is a superb example of a medium-sized engineering company succeeding in tough export markets.

Burma

Graham Jones: What reports he has received on humanitarian access to conflict areas in Burma.

Jeremy Browne: We receive regular updates on humanitarian access to conflict areas in Burma from non-governmental organisations and from our embassy and Department for International Development officials in Rangoon. Access is still very restricted, and we continue to press the Burmese Government to increase humanitarian access to all areas.

Graham Jones: In addition to medical supplies, Médecins sans Frontières has recently highlighted the chronic lack of antiretroviral and tuberculosis drugs in Burma. In the light of that, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with the Burmese Government about the international supply of these drugs?

Jeremy Browne: The Foreign Secretary visited Burma last month—he was the first Foreign Secretary to do so since 1955—and had a wide range of productive conversations with the Burmese Government and others. It is worth pointing out that although no United Kingdom aid goes through the Burmese Government directly, the United Kingdom is the largest donor of humanitarian
	assistance to Burma, and will be spending an average of £46 million a year until 2015 on precisely the sort of projects that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

David Burrowes: I understand that our ambassador meets Burmese Ministers regularly. What is at the top of his agenda when it comes to highlighting the continued abuse of human rights?

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the appalling abuses of human rights that been taking place in Burma for many years. I think it reasonable for us to acknowledge that progress appears to have been made in recent months, and, when appropriate, to reward it, but we should not anticipate further progress before it has happened. Our ambassador and others, including Ministers, are keen to continue to press the Burmese Government to liberalise society further in that country.

Meg Munn: The progress in Burma is very welcome, and no doubt the Burmese Government will want to see changes to the current sanctions regime. I was pleased to note that the Minister said that it was probably too early for that to happen, but what discussions have been held with our European counterparts about the issue?

Jeremy Browne: A decision is likely to be made in a few months’ time. I think it right for Britain to maintain a position on trade with Burma which is very tough, and which takes account of the concerns about human rights abuses in the country that are expressed frequently in the House, but we want to maintain a common European position, because we feel that that is an effective way in which to proceed. We will maintain that position with a hard-headed attitude which I hope will meet with the hon. Lady’s approval.

Topical Questions

Julian Sturdy: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: I attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels yesterday. We agreed on a number of additions to our sanctions against the Assad regime, notably the freezing of the assets of the Central Bank of Syria, a ban on imports of gold and precious metals, a ban on cargo flights, and the listing of seven more Government Ministers.

Julian Sturdy: I am always sympathetic about the dangers facing the Israeli people from some of their aggressive neighbours, and will remain so, but does the Secretary of State agree that settlement-building programmes are never a means to an end and are, in fact, becoming a serious obstacle to peace?

William Hague: Yes, I do agree with that. As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has often pointed out, we have made very strong representations to the Israeli Government whenever settlements have been announced
	in recent times. Settlements are on occupied land, they are illegal—that is the view of almost the whole of the rest of the world—and this is an issue that Israel must address.

Douglas Alexander: Given the recent violence in Afghanistan in response to the unintentional burning of the Koran at a United States air base, and given that it took some time for President Karzai to call for an end to the violence, are the Government fully satisfied with the efforts that he is making to bring the situation fully under control?

William Hague: Yes. The British Government, along with our partners, condemn any behaviour that disrespects any religion. We welcome the apology from President Obama to President Karzai, which demonstrated sincere regret for the incident—which was, I believe, a genuine mistake, as was reflected in the right hon. Gentleman’s question—and we welcome the calls for calm from the Afghan Government. We echo President Karzai’s call to the Afghan people, as he put it,
	“not to allow the enemies of peace to exploit the opportunity for their own ends”.

Douglas Alexander: Is the Foreign Secretary fully satisfied more generally with the work that President Karzai is doing? The objective of achieving peace is one that we all share, but according to the latest reports there are continuing concerns about corruption, governance and, more broadly, the provision of services and security.

William Hague: Of course there are always things that we are urging the Afghanistan Government to do, and addressing accusations of corruption and improving governance—both from Kabul and around the country—are important examples. However, our relations with the Afghanistan Government are very good. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister and President Karzai met a month ago to sign a long-term enduring partnership between our countries, which demonstrates the good basis of trust between our Governments.

Nadhim Zahawi: Burhan Ghalioun, chairman of the Syrian national council, has said that a revolution in Syria will not be successful without the support of the minorities in that country, and he has offered to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected in a post-Assad Syria. With Kurds representing up to 20% of the Syrian population and the Christian community a further 9% to 12%, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the SNC and its chairman on this subject?

William Hague: I discussed that issue, and many others, with the chairman and his SNC colleagues in Tunis on Friday. I have long encouraged them to set out their determination to protect minorities and to seek to represent all communities in Syria. On this occasion, I was impressed by the chairman’s determination to do so and by the speech he gave to the conference in Tunis, which contained a full commitment to democracy and the protection of minorities. It is very good that the Syrian opposition have made those things clear.

Graham Jones: Does the Foreign Secretary share my concerns about the proposed evictions of Palestinian families and the demolition of their homes in the Silwan area of East Jerusalem? If so, what representations is he making to the Israeli Government and what actions are the UK Government taking to help prevent the destruction of these Palestinian homes?

Alistair Burt: On behalf of the United Kingdom Government, I have made representations on Silwan both to the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and the Israeli ambassador. It remains a matter of concern for us, and we continue to press on these issues in the manner that the Foreign Secretary set out a moment ago.

John Baron: Given that the eurozone is a slow-motion train crash, will the Government divert some of the extra billions of pounds they are, yet again, about to throw at the inflated EU budget into furthering trade relationships with the Commonwealth? A shared language, shared accounting and legal systems and growing markets suggest that that is a no-brainer.

William Hague: I think that my hon. Friend has had the euro as both a dead man walking and a train crash in the same Question Time, so his metaphors are becoming a little confused. However, we certainly are putting much-increased effort into our trade with emerging economies across the world, including many Commonwealth nations. My hon. Friend might like to know that the Commonwealth represents a steadily increasing proportion of the trade of the world. That underlines the importance of our renewed commitment to it under this Government.

Keith Vaz: Twenty-four hours ago, a new President was sworn in in Yemen, yet at the same time 26 people were killed in a suicide bomb attack in the south. What steps are the Government taking to support the new Government of President Hadi at this crucial moment in Yemen’s history, and when will the Foreign Secretary visit the country?

William Hague: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have visited Yemen, as has my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and he will be visiting again in the not-too-distant future. Over the past few weeks we have had discussions with the then vice-president, who has since been inaugurated as the new President. Yemen now has a genuine moment of opportunity. We will revive the Friends of Yemen process, which has the potential to bring a lot of co-ordinated international support to the efforts of the Government of Yemen to bring stability and peace to their country.

Sheryll Murray: Last August the Deputy Prime Minister announced that up to £20 million from the Arab Partnership Fund would be allocated to Libya from 2012 to 2015. That investment is co-funded by the Department for International
	Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. How much of the money will be spent on poverty-reducing economic growth?

Alistair Burt: I cannot confirm the exact amount because the Arab Partnership projects in Libya are still being rolled out, but money is being spent not only on building capacity in Ministries that will be designed to work on these difficult issues, but on democracy building and the like. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a full list of current projects as soon as possible.

Jonathan Ashworth: Ministers will know that there is a sizeable Somali community in Leicester, many of whom followed the deliberations of the recent conference with great interest. I am keen to find out how Ministers plan to continue to engage with that community. In addition, to what extent was the role of children discussed at the conference? What more can be done internationally to protect children in that part of the world?

Henry Bellingham: There has been a huge amount of engagement with the Somali diaspora in this country, both on the part of FCO Ministers and from the Prime Minister downwards. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met Somali diaspora groups on a number of occasions, and I have had five such meetings and have visited the Finsbury Park mosque as a result of an invitation from the local MP. We will carry on that engagement, because understanding the views of these groups and their vision for the future, including that of their children, is incredibly important.

Bob Russell: Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that the UK will give no support, militarily or diplomatically to Israel if it launches an armed attack on Iran?

William Hague: My hon. Friend will be aware of our policy on Iran, which was debated thoroughly at the beginning of last week, when the Government’s approach was massively endorsed in this House on 20 February. So we have set out our policy in detail. We are not calling for or advocating a military attack on Iran, and at this moment we advise others not to do so. But we also believe that it is important to keep Iran under pressure and that no options are taken off the table.

Caroline Lucas: If the Secretary of State is committed to the UK being a world leader on business and human rights, as I am sure he is, what is he doing to persuade the Secretary of State for Justice to drop the provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that will shift liability for cost and insurance away from multinational companies and on to innocent victims in developing countries?

William Hague: My Department has had discussions with the Ministry of Justice about this matter, and the hon. Lady will be aware of the Government’s position, as set out by the Justice Secretary. Of course if there is any change in that position, it will be for my right hon. and learned Friend to announce it.

Angie Bray: There is considerable nervousness among Christian communities across the middle east in these uncertain times, and apparently many Copts are beginning to leave Egypt. What discussions have the Government had with the Egyptian authorities on religious tolerance?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend raises a subject of considerable concern, not only in Egypt, but across a range of countries, as she rightly said. We engage bilaterally with those countries on the importance of the rule of law and of rights, stressing to Governments how important those things are. Equally, I keep in contact with the non-governmental organisations that deal with this issue; I saw representatives of Christians from Pakistan in my office just last week. This is a matter of concern all over the region and so the remarks made by Burhan Ghalioun in Syria about reaching out to Christian minorities there were particularly significant.

Sheila Gilmore: Reference has been made this afternoon to the emerging political and security difficulties in Afghanistan. Have the Government assessed how capable the Afghan state is of effectively administering the presidential elections due in 2014?

William Hague: As the hon. Lady says, those elections are due in 2014. Over previous elections the Afghan state, supported by the international security assistance force, has shown an increasing capability to administer elections safely. I am sure that that capability will increase much further over the next two years, given that the build-up of the Afghan national security forces is continuing. As she knows, it is our intention that by the end of 2014 the Afghan national security forces will be able to conduct security all over Afghanistan for themselves, and that includes supervising elections.

Laura Sandys: Given the growing tensions between Azerbaijan and Iran, which are extremely worrying, what are we doing to upgrade our diplomatic support to Azerbaijan, which is both politically and economically extremely important to this country?

William Hague: We have good links with Azerbaijan, particularly given its current membership of the UN Security Council—it joined a few months ago. So our diplomatic contact and co-ordination with Azerbaijan has increased. As to the level of representation, we regularly review that but I do not have any new announcement to make about that at the moment.

Valerie Vaz: Earlier, the Foreign Secretary outlined the atrocities in Syria. Will he say in which circumstances he would stop maintaining diplomatic relations with Syria?

William Hague: There are good arguments for and against maintaining diplomatic relations in these circumstances. We have seen in recent days some of the advantages of maintaining relations, because our ambassador in Damascus has been very active in trying to secure the safe passage out of Syria of the injured journalist who we were discussing earlier. Having people on the ground and having a channel of communication has a value,
	even when we so deeply disapprove of the conduct of the Government concerned. Of course, we must keep under review for security reasons the position of our embassy in Damascus and I stress that that is something that I keep under very intense review.

Nick de Bois: The Minister will be aware of the shocking murder of Christians in Borno state, northern Nigeria, by Boko Haram. Will he outline what steps the British Government might be able to take to assist the Nigerian Government in dealing with that problem?

Henry Bellingham: I certainly share my hon. Friend’s outrage at these attacks on both Christians and Muslim groups in northern Nigeria. The Prime Minister met President Goodluck Jonathan last week and the UK has offered to share experience on counter-terrorism policy, doctrine and legal frameworks. We have also offered to promote more bridge-building initiatives between Christians and Muslims.

Derek Twigg: In view of the fact that the Argentines are economically blockading the Falkland Islands and threatening the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, will the Foreign Secretary make representations to his right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary to ensure that the UK votes differently at the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank and instead supports American efforts to galvanise a coalition among G20 countries to deny
	such loans to Argentina? In fact, will he make representations that we should stop making contributions to those loans?

Jeremy Browne: I share the hon. Gentleman’s fury and frustrations about the economic blockade that the Argentines are seeking to enforce against the Falkland Islands. On this specific issue, I have made inquiries as I know that there are concerns in the House and I have been told that no UK taxpayers’ money is spent on providing finance to Argentina through the World Bank, nor does the Department for International Development give any aid at present to Argentina.

Zac Goldsmith: Building on the success of the marine protected area in the British Indian ocean, may I ask the Minister what recent assessment he has made of the merits of establishing marine protected areas in Pitcairn, Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands?

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that 90% of Britain’s biodiversity lies in the overseas territories, which is why a very important part of the forthcoming White Paper on the overseas territories will be devoted to how we manage that habitat and its biodiversity. Of course, the territories he has mentioned will play an important part in that exercise.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must now move on.

Health and Social Care Bill

Andy Burnham: : To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Health and Social Care Bill following a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to MPs and peers and the Government’s response.

Andrew Lansley: I am glad to have this opportunity again to set out the purposes of the Health and Social Care Bill. It will give patients more information and choice, so that they can share in decision-making about their care. It empowers front-line doctors and nurses to lead the delivery of care for their patients. It cuts out two tiers of bureaucracy and strengthens the voice of patients and the role of local government in integrating services and strengthening public health.
	The values of the Bill are simple: putting patients first, trusting doctors and nurses, focusing on results for patients and maintaining the founding values of the NHS. We are constantly looking to reinforce those values, strengthening the NHS to meet the challenges it faces. We know change is essential; we will not let the NHS down by blocking change. Throughout the development and progress of this Bill, we have engaged extensively with NHS staff, the public, and parliamentarians.
	The Health and Social Care Bill is the most scrutinised public Bill in living memory—[ Interruption. ] With over 200 hours of debate between the two Chambers and 35 days in Committee, we have ensured that Members and peers have had every opportunity to examine, understand and amend the Bill to—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I granted this question because I want Members to have the chance to scrutinise the Government of the day, but courtesy dictates that the Secretary of State’s statement must be heard.

Andrew Lansley: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	We have made this legislation better and stronger. We have made significant changes to the Bill, including in response to the NHS Future Forum’s work and we have been open to any further changes that would improve or clarify the Bill. For example, so far in the Lords, the Government have accepted amendments tabled by a number of Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat and Labour peers.
	Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Baroness Williams wrote to their Liberal Democrat colleagues explaining their support for the Bill, with those changes and some further amendments they wish to see. They said, for example, how we must
	“rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS”.
	I wholeheartedly agree. The Bill is about quality, not competition on price. It will not permit any NHS organisation to be taken over by the private sector. It will put patients’ interests first. The Bill does not permit any extension of charging, and care will be free, based on need. Where the doctors and nurses on the ground know that competition is in the best interests of their patients—where it is based entirely on the quality of the care and treatment provided and not in any way on the
	price of that care and treatment—then competition can play an important role in driving up standards throughout the NHS.
	We will not see a market free-for-all or a “US-style” insurance system in this country. I believe in the national health service. I am a passionate supporter of our NHS, and that is why I understand the passionate debate it arouses. It is also why I resent those Opposition Members who seek to misrepresent the NHS, its current achievements and its future needs. We—and I do mean all of us on the Government Benches—are using the debates in the Lords further to reassure all those who care about the NHS. I am grateful for this chance to reassure all my hon. Friends regarding the positive and beneficial effects of debate in the other place and about the work we are all doing to secure a positive future for the NHS.

Andy Burnham: On Friday, the Prime Minister promised there would be no more amendments, and yesterday lunch time the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said that the whole Government backed the Bill as it stood, but hours later the Deputy Prime Minister called for changes to a flagship Bill that he has supported all the way. The Government appear to be in complete disarray—or perhaps this was pre-agreed coalition choreography for the Deputy Prime Minister to save face. Either way, this House is entitled to ask, “What is going on?” The NHS matters too much for us to allow it to be carved up in the unelected House in cosy coalition deals, so we are grateful, Mr Speaker, that you have brought Ministers here today to start providing some answers.
	First, on the process, will the Secretary of State tell the House when he was first made aware of the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter? Was he consulted about its contents in advance and did he consent to the apparent change of policy or was he overruled by the Deputy Prime Minister? Who is in charge of health policy? Is anyone in charge?
	Secondly, on policy, will the Secretary of State update the House on the precise detail of the changes that the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking in the five areas he identifies? For instance, we hear that the Deputy Prime Minister, having previously defended the 49% private patient income cap for foundation trusts, now wants “additional safeguards”. What are those safeguards? Are the changes still under discussion or do they now represent Government policy? Yesterday, the Liberal Democrats played up the changes, but the Secretary of State’s Department has dismissed them as minor. Is his view the same as ours that the amendments do not affect the substance of his Bill but rather are cosmetic changes designed to make the Deputy Prime Minister look good in advance of his spring conference?
	The Prime Minister has been clear: this Bill is about competition at the heart of the health service. The Deputy Prime Minister has supported it all the way. Are not these just empty gestures designed to save face? This is a bad Bill that cannot be amended. Last week, the president of the Lib Dems spoke for his party when he admitted that the Bill should have been dropped. Does that not explain what this posturing is all about? In their heart of hearts the Liberal Democrats hate this Bill but have not had the guts to stand up to the Prime Minister and say so. Both coalition parties are putting
	their political pride before the best interests of the NHS. Is it not time for them to do what they said they would do at the start—listen to doctors and nurses and drop this Bill?

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman even read the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter, judging from what he has just said. I will tell him exactly what the process is. The process is for detailed discussion in another place. There were 15 days of debate in Committee in another place. It is the habit in another place not to amend the Bill in Committee, but to use those debates in Committee as a basis for amendment on Report. The process is straightforward. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, together with Baroness Shirley Williams, explained to their Liberal Democrat colleagues some of the amendments on which we have been working together in order to make sure that there is further reassurance. [Interruption.] That is literally true.
	Let me put the right hon. Gentleman right about something. What is at the heart of the Bill is improving the quality of care for patients. I note that he did not quote me or represent that he was quoting me. I have never said that competition is at the heart of the Bill. Competition is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The purpose of the Bill is to achieve quality. Where competition enables us to deliver better quality for patients, we should use it. Where integration of services and an absence of competition is in the interests of patients in delivering quality, that is the basis upon which the NHS should proceed. The Bill has been tremendously strengthened and is now a long-term sustainable basis for the NHS to deliver the quality of care for patients that we are looking for, while maintaining all the values of the NHS.

Stephen Dorrell: Has my right hon. Friend yet been able to understand how it can be that a party which, when in government, promoted practice-based commissioning that involved GPs in commissioning, promoted private sector investment in NHS institutions, and promoted the commissioning of care from private sector providers where that was in the best interests of patients now thinks all those principles undermine the national health service to which he, we and presumably the Opposition are still committed?

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend makes extremely good points. It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) appears to be trying to represent us as not agreeing about matters. He is chronically incapable of agreeing with himself. In June 2006 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said that what the NHS needed in future was foundation trusts, practice-based commissioning, more involvement for the private sector and payment by results. The thing is that Labour in office did not achieve any of those things. It is only through the mechanism of the legislation that we are putting together that we are going to enable the NHS to achieve those things in a way that does not entail all the difficulties that Labour had, such as getting the private sector involvement with the NHS wrong. We are going to get those things right.

Frank Dobson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Salisbury convention requires the House of Lords not to reject a measure if it
	has an electoral mandate? As all the parties in the House were mandated not to totally reorganise the national health service, would it not be wholly proper for the Liberal Democrats in the Lords to have some guts, join with Labour and Cross Benchers and vote the whole measure down?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong about that. Perhaps he was not here last Wednesday when we debated health matters. [Hon. Members: “He was.”] Well, then he did not listen. I set out very clearly how the Bill was responding to the manifesto mandate that we in our party had, and it was a manifesto mandate that the Liberal Democrats brought to the coalition Government, not least in relation to the role of local government, bringing greater democratic accountability, which is precisely how some of these things have been achieved. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about a mandate in the Lords, he might like to tell his colleagues that at the last election his party was elected on the basis of supporting foundation trusts, for example, to be able to be free to increase their private income.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. If I am to accommodate anywhere near the level of interest in this important matter, I shall require brevity—to be led, as so often, by Mr John Redwood.

John Redwood: Am I right to tell my constituents that the purpose of this reform is to give more choice of care to patients, and to give more power to GPs to deliver better free treatment?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, absolutely right.

Ben Bradshaw: Given that the right hon. Gentleman inherited an NHS with record short waiting times, record high public satisfaction and improving competitiveness, does he ever in his darkest moments wish that he had not embarked on this damaging and costly upheaval?

Andrew Lansley: At the last election the average waiting time for in-patient treatment was 8.4 weeks. In December 2001, when the most recent data were published, it had come down to 7.7 weeks. The right hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that the number of people waiting more than a year for treatment in the NHS is now more than half what it was at the last election.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for accepting many of the amendments to the Bill proposed by our colleagues and others and thank his colleague in the House of Lords for accommodating not only Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, but Labour peers who have joined us in bringing forward such amendments. Will he give an undertaking to continue to work collaboratively to improve the Bill to the very end and reject Labour’s allegations that it did not force privatisation on the NHS, which we are definitely not doing?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and thank him for his positive remarks about my noble Friend Earl Howe. I attach to that my appreciation to Baroness Northover for the work she has been doing in another place and to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is responsible for care services, who has been heavily engaged in discussing some of the amendments. I recall that nearly a year ago there was a clear expression of interest from the Liberal Democrats, as a party, on how they felt the Bill should be improved. I was pleased that we were able to bring forward changes that reflected virtually all those. Indeed, they are reflected directly in what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in his letter yesterday.

Kevin Barron: If the competition in the Bill is just an extension of what the previous Government did by introducing independent sector treatment centres and everything else, why are more than 90 clauses writing into the law of the land that competition policy should run the NHS, not the NHS, as has been the case in the past?

Andrew Lansley: I would not characterise this as an extension of the independent sector treatment centres programme. That is precisely what we do not need to do with the private sector. Under the Labour Government, the private sector was paid 11% more than the NHS, which was wrong, and in another place there is a legislative provision that will prevent discrimination in favour of the private sector. The Bill will carry forward exactly the principles and rules of co-operation and competition, as reflected in the panel set up under the previous Government. As NHS Future Forum set out, the reason for having that in the Bill, with Monitor exercising those responsibilities, is so that there will be a health sector regulator, rather than that being done without health expertise by the Office of Fair Trading.

Nadine Dorries: Some Conservative Members never criticised, and in fact supported, the previous Government when they introduced private health care providers into the NHS. In his letter, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the use of private health care firms has been explicitly prevented as a result of his involvement. Is that really true? If so, should someone not tell him who is running this Government?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that we are a coalition Government and, therefore, this is a coalition Bill that reflects the views of the whole coalition. To that extent, I reiterate to her and to the House that, as the Deputy Prime Minister has quite rightly said, the legislation will not allow discrimination in favour of the private sector in the way that the Labour party did.

Dennis Skinner: All those royal colleges, all those nurses and all those doctors know that this Bill is about privatisation. Along come these tin-pot Liberals, who put forward an idea to make a few marginal shifts. It is the biggest con trick of all time. This is about trying to save the face of those people, who should have opposed the Bill from the very beginning. Drop this lousy Bill.

Andrew Lansley: I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what the Bill is about: improving care for patients. That is what I care about, and it ought to be what he cares about. [ Interruption. ]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) who is chuntering inanely from a sedentary position, to no obvious benefit or purpose, that the Chair is perfectly capable of adjudicating upon what is and is not in order and that it does not behove an hon. Member to seek to intervene in such matters? These proceedings have thus far been entirely orderly. That is the beginning and the end of the matter.

Peter Bone: There is an old political saying that the Liberal Democrats say one thing at one end of their constituency and another thing at the other end. Will the Secretary of State lay that rumour absolutely to rest—that they are not saying one thing at this end of Parliament and another thing at the other end?

Andrew Lansley: I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that I, with my colleagues, have had very constructive engagement with my Liberal Democrat colleagues in government and, indeed, during the course of our debates in another place.

Gisela Stuart: Following the question from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), can the Secretary of State tell us when he was aware of the letter, whether he was consulted on it and whether he had any input?

Andrew Lansley: I believe that I answered that question. The point of the letter was to reflect the discussions that we have been having.

John Baron: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the debate so far risks ignoring the importance of the Bill’s renewed outcomes? In cancer, for example, such focus is instrumental in driving forward earlier diagnosis, which in itself could save quite literally thousands of lives.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that in that context he shares with me the appreciation of the benefit that will come from campaigns to promote the early awareness of cancer, such as, following piloting, the roll-out of the national campaign for the awareness of bowel cancer symptoms.

John Healey: Is not this another attempted PR and political fix for a mismanaged health Bill that is again in chaos? Which of the changes set out in the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter was not agreed in government first?

Andrew Lansley: Would that be the same Bill that the right hon. Gentleman described as “consistent, coherent and comprehensive”?

Conor Burns: May I ask the Secretary of State today to confirm again that when the Bill becomes law the national health service will
	remain funded through taxation and free at the point of use regardless of ability to pay? Opposition Front Benchers should stop scaring our constituents with grossly inappropriate scare stories.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I share his deep resentment at the way in which Opposition Members misrepresent and distort what is in the legislation and then, when people write to us concerned about what is in the legislation, accuse us of not listening to them. Opposition Members should read what is in the Bill, find out that it achieves the purposes that my hon. Friend describes and not distort it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I simply say to the Secretary of State that to refer to somebody “distorting” something is perfectly in order, but I know that he would not want to use an unparliamentary term and talk about anything being “misrepresented”. I think he is accusing a Member of being erroneous. I think that is what he has in mind.

Andrew Lansley: You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker. They are very erroneous.

Grahame Morris: There is clearly no mandate, either in this House or in the other place, for these huge changes and massive top-down reorganisation. Some 162,000 people have signed an e-petition calling on the Government to drop the Bill, so may I remind the Secretary of State that his own party’s election manifesto stated that
	“any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate”?
	Does he not think that it is time for us to have a full debate about the issue, to find out who is in favour and who is against and to drop the Bill?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman, himself, was present at 40 sittings in Committee, during which his hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), the shadow spokesman, said that the Bill had been thoroughly scrutinised. We have debated it; in another place they continue to debate it very fully and very constructively; and I believe that that will deliver us the right Bill for the NHS.

Andrea Leadsom: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Bill is superb news for patients, and that under the Secretary of State’s new Bill, my constituent who requires less invasive hip treatment in a neighbouring county will be able to choose to go to that other provider for a less expensive operation that will do him less harm and more good?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, indeed. For the first time, not just through the legislation but through the modernisation of the national health service, patients will be able to see, through the data, the quality of the service provided in the NHS by a range of providers. When patients are asked whether they want—on that basis, as NHS patients with a free service based on their need—to be able to choose who should provide them with care, 81% say that they want that choice. We will give them that choice; Labour would not.

Barbara Keeley: The Deputy Prime Minister’s letter promised
	“additional safeguards to the private income cap”.
	Will the Secretary of State explain what are these additional safeguards aimed at ensuring that foundation trusts cannot focus on private profits before patients?

Andrew Lansley: We have already made it very clear in another place that the legislation will ensure that foundation trusts should have the freedom to increase their private income, not least in relation to international work. However, their principal legal purpose is for the benefit of NHS patients, and so they already have to make sure that they reflect that in their annual reports and in their annual plans. As the letter indicates, we are, with my hon. Friends in another place, working on a further corporate governance mechanism to ensure that foundation trusts reflect their principal legal purpose in all that they do. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the questions and the answers. Members are a little overexcited and they need to calm down just a tad. A good example of such calm will now, I am sure, be provided by Mr John Hemming.

John Hemming: Under Labour, local democratic accountability in the NHS was reduced by the abolition, without consultation, of the community health councils. The letter refers to the creation of the health and wellbeing boards, which will increase local democratic accountability for the health service. Will the Secretary of State explain how that will ensure that local services in the health service better fit local health needs?

Andrew Lansley: That is a very powerful and positive step forward. Through the joint strategic needs assessment and the strategy derived from that, local authorities and the NHS will now increasingly work together to deliver integrated services extending across health, social care and public health.

Luciana Berger: Will the Secretary of State please confirm whether all the changes outlined in the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter now represent Government policy?

Andrew Lansley: The Deputy Prime Minister’s letter accurately reflects the discussions that we have been having in another place—[ Interruption ] I do not see why that is funny; it is very simple—in anticipation of the amendments that will be debated there on Report.

Phillip Lee: The previous Labour Government, of whom the shadow Secretary of State for Health was an active member, negotiated private finance initiative contracts that are costing the NHS almost £3,000 per minute. Will the Secretary of State detail what his Department and the Treasury are doing to help to alleviate this enormous level of debt, which has risked the viability of some NHS services?

Andrew Lansley: We are helping all trusts with PFI contracts to manage the costs of those contracts. Seven trusts were left with unsustainable PFI contracts, and we have
	made it clear that we are willing to help support them. Labour Members—they are not even listening—are distorting the nature of this legislation, which does not permit privatisation. Given that during their time in office they left the NHS with 102 hospital projects owned, in effect, by the private sector, with a PFI debt of £67 billion, it is outrageous for them to sit there pointing fingers at us.

David Winnick: If this is such a marvellous measure that protects the NHS, as the Secretary of State has been saying, why is it opposed by virtually all those in the medical profession and by most of the public, to the extent that he has become almost a hate figure? Is it because he lacks persuasiveness or because this is a worthless Bill that will undermine the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman should go and talk to the clinical commissioning groups across the country that are delivering on the clinical leadership that will modernise and improve the NHS rather than simply sitting reading the newspapers and imagining that he knows what is going on in the NHS.

Philip Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when she was in government, Baroness Williams was one of the chief architects of ruining the state education system in this country? Given that, why would a Conservative-dominated Government wish to dance to her tune?

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Williams is now a member of the Liberal Democrat party, and in that respect I am not aware that she has ever transgressed in government.

Paul Goggins: Last year, when the Bill was in its infancy, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), gave me an assurance that NHS services in Trafford undergoing changes would not be privatised. In the light of all the amendments, is the Secretary of State able to offer me the same assurance, especially given that the Co-operation and Competition Panel in his Department has instructed the local NHS to devise a contract that is divided into six separate lots, with a warning that competition must be prosecuted, otherwise there will be severe consequences?

Andrew Lansley: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the same reassurance that the Minister of State gave.

Anne Main: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the previous Government were, in 2006, given the advice that it was neither possible nor desirable to ensure that competition was not allowed in the NHS because it is subject to EU competition rules?

Andrew Lansley: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that important point. People such as the former Chair of the Select Committee on Health, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), who is no longer in his place, are fond of asking why we are introducing
	competition into the NHS. We are not. The Bill does not introduce competition to or extend competition within the NHS. The legal advice disclosed in one of today’s national newspapers makes it clear that the previous Labour Government introduced the reach of competition law into the NHS by introducing the elective choice programme in 2006.

Angela Smith: If the Health Secretary believes so much in the value of his Bill, why did he not take the time to explain it to voters before the general election, instead of promising that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: I refer the hon. Lady to pages 46 and 47 of the Conservative party manifesto and, to understand the Bill fully, to the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

David Tredinnick: I encourage my right hon. Friend to read the minutes of the Hinckley and Bosworth health and wellbeing partnership meeting. He will see that clinical commissioning groups are in place and that there is a priority on early intervention. There is support for the health and wellbeing board and its priorities. Does that not go completely against what we are hearing from Opposition Members?

Andrew Lansley: I had the pleasure—before Christmas, I think—of meeting the local authority, the director of public health and the three clinical commissioning groups from across Leicestershire, who are all enthusiastic about the opportunities presented by the modernisation of the NHS legislation.

Dave Watts: Is it not clear to even this Secretary of State that the Bill is now a dog’s breakfast? Given that doctors, nurses, the public, the Lords and many Government Members oppose the Bill, what mandate does he have for such a radical change of the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point I made about the mandate. Beyond the mandate, staff across the NHS have been clear for years that they want more clinical leadership and clinically led commissioning; they want local authorities to integrate health and social care services more effectively; and they support the transfer of leadership in health improvement into the hands of local authorities. The Bill achieves those principles. That is why all through last year, the Royal College of Nursing told me that it supported the Bill.

Penny Mordaunt: The Secretary of State is not the only one who has noticed a shift in the Opposition’s stance on independent sector provision. I have started to receive letters from constituents who are concerned that Labour will next call for much-loved NHS services that are currently provided by the independent and charitable sectors to be shut down. Will he assure me that if those calls are made, he will fight them?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point about what would happen if we followed the apparent views of the Labour party. More than 11% of mental health services in this country are provided by the private and charitable sectors. Recently, I was in
	Northampton, where St Andrew’s Healthcare provides important services. I opened its new building, which will provide first-rate, state-of-the-art care for mental health patients. The attitude of the Labour party is that all that should be shut down.

Meg Hillier: Up and down the country, thousands of NHS staff have already been laid off—so much for no top-down reorganisation—and many of them are being re-employed at vast expense. When will the Secretary of State publish the costs to date, before the Bill is even law, of this overarching reorganisation?

Andrew Lansley: I do not know whether the hon. Lady has read the latest monthly data on the NHS work force, but since the election the number of non-clinical staff has gone down by 15,000, including the number of managers by 5,800, and the number of clinical staff has risen, including more than 4,500 more doctors.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like to accommodate a few more questions, but from now on I really do require single-sentence questions without preamble and comparably pithy replies.

Jane Ellison: My constituency has considerable health inequalities, so I very much welcome the fact that tackling health inequalities is at the heart of the Bill. Does the Secretary of State share my surprise that the Opposition do not similarly welcome that?

Andrew Lansley: I have to tell my hon. Friend that nothing much about the Opposition surprises me any more.

Alex Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State now accept that, contrary to the impression he is trying to create, the opposition to his muddled bill is not some plot by health workers or trade unions with vested interests, but is coming from many Liberal Democrats, the majority of the British public and almost the entire health community, to whom his Government promised to listen?

Andrew Lansley: Opposition Members distort what is in the Bill and tell their constituents that it is something other than what it is, and then they come to the House and say, “Oh, it’s muddled.” It is not muddled at all; it is they who are muddled.

Sarah Wollaston: I do not know any GPs who want to see inappropriate use of the private sector. They will be doing the commissioning and the public will be able to see what they are doing. Should we not let them get on with it?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was very pleased to hear what was said by Dr Sam Barwell—I think her name is Barwell.

Sarah Wollaston: Barrell.

Andrew Lansley: Barrell. One had only to listen to how Dr Sam Barrell and her colleagues in the Baywide clinical commissioning group in my hon. Friend’s constituency
	are providing clinical leadership in south Devon and Torbay to be absolutely clear that the Bill is right to give them that responsibility and that they will use it extremely well.

Catherine McKinnell: If the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter agreed with the Secretary of State, as the Secretary of State has confirmed today, can he explain why the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford, said on Radio 4 yesterday that there would be no further changes to the Government’s Bill?

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend and I are very clear that, as I explained—really quite carefully, I thought—it is customary in another place for some of the issues that have been debated to be reflected in amendments on Report, and that is what will happen.

Charlie Elphicke: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the principles underpinning the Bill are that the NHS is and will remain free for all patients; that a person’s GP knows them and their needs best; and that although we are spending billions of pounds more than Labour would have done, every pound needs to work as hard as possible if the NHS is to be modern and provide care for the future?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right, not least on his point that the coalition Government are investing in the NHS, with real-terms increases each year. That contrasts with the Labour Government in Wales, who in the course of this Parliament intend to reduce spending on the NHS by more than 6% in real terms.

Jim Shannon: At a very lively Conservative away-day last Friday, a document was issued that stated:
	“If we changed or altered the bill now, we would end up in a no man’s land, and chaos.”
	Four days later, can the Secretary of State confirm the Government’s position?

Andrew Lansley: The Government’s position is that there has been very constructive debate in Committee in the Lords, and I look forward to that being reflected in equally constructive debates on Report.

Duncan Hames: Liberal Democrats hate Labour’s health reforms, which result in hospitals being paid for operations whether they happen or not. Does the Secretary of State consider that the NHS, for which he remains responsible, would be in better health had Labour’s reforms been subjected to the parliamentary scrutiny that his have?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Many of the issues that have been the subject of some of the most heated debate on the Bill have been raised because Labour never addressed them. He is absolutely right that one result will be that in future, it will no longer be possible for £250 million to be paid to the private sector for operations that never take place.

Helen Jones: Can the Secretary of State explain why he is prepared to get into further discussions with the Liberal Democrats to help them to
	save seats in May, but not to do so with doctors, nurses and midwives, who all oppose the Bill? Is he engaged in patching up the coalition rather than in providing proper health care?

Andrew Lansley: I think I made that perfectly clear not only in the course of the initial consultation on the White Paper, but then through the NHS Future Forum. Many thousands of NHS staff contributed their views to the NHS Future Forum, which made many recommendations and we accepted them all.

Chris Skidmore: Is it not the case that the text of the letter merely reflects the Government’s amendments on Lords Report? The Opposition really should have done their homework, because it has been on the website since 1 February. They are four weeks out of date.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right up to a point. On Report in the other House, amendments reflecting the debate in Committee will be tabled. They might not all be Government amendments, but I am looking forward to constructive amendments. As I have said, if amendments from Liberal Democrat or indeed Labour peers are constructive and will help to improve the Bill, we will accept them.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the changes are significant, as stated by the Deputy Prime Minister, or merely reassurance, as stated by the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson?

Andrew Lansley: The amendments on Report that we will support will, by their nature, be significant.

Rob Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that our NHS reforms will outlaw the practice common under the previous Government of the private sector being paid more than the NHS for exactly the same operation?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, that is absolutely correct. For the first time, we will have a provision in law that prevents the kind of discrimination in favour of the private sector that was practised in government by the Labour party.

Derek Twigg: In an article in The Guardian on 13 February, Baroness Williams said:
	“The way out of this mess is not hard to find… What that would mean for the bill would be dropping the chapter on competition”.
	Will the Secretary of State clarify whether he is willing to accept such an amendment from Baroness Williams?

Andrew Lansley: As I understand it, I have come to the House to answer questions about a letter, jointly signed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Baroness Shirley Williams, which does not say that.

Christopher Pincher: In 2007, when he was Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State waxed eloquent, saying that he celebrated the private sector in the NHS. Has my right hon. Friend any clue to what changed the right hon. Gentleman’s mind?

Andrew Lansley: I think opposition changed his mind.

Kate Green: The Secretary of State said this afternoon that competition will not be allowed to get in the way of sensible integration of services, so why is Trafford Healthcare proceeding with the commissioning of provider services in six penny packets, as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins)? How can that support the sensible integration of services?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady must be aware that under the Bill, we will move from primary care trusts that, under current public procurement rules, are very often not capable of integrating services as they would want, to clinical commissioning groups, which will have the freedom and power to do so.

Andrew Selous: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that clauses 22 and 25 of the Bill remain, which for the first time ever put a duty on the Government to deal with health inequality.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is indeed true, and it gives the lie, if you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, not to anybody in the House, but to those who would represent the legislation as having the effect of widening health inequalities. Health inequalities widened under the Labour Government. For the first time, our legislation will place on all NHS bodies and the Secretary of State a duty to tackle and reduce health inequalities.

Rushanara Ali: The Secretary of State will know that Tower Hamlets clinical commissioning group in my constituency has decided today to ask the Government to drop the Bill, citing the bureaucracy it will generate as a key reason. When the structures he has established to advise him tell him that they want no part in the nightmare that he is creating, is it not time to think again and drop the Bill?

Andrew Lansley: I have been to Sam Everington’s practice in Bromley-by-Bow, which has been gearing itself up. It will use the powers in the Bill and will do so very effectively.

Harriett Baldwin: Foundation trusts will be given the freedom to increase private services and patients will have the right to choose any provider that meets NHS standards. Was the Secretary of State as surprised as I was to learn that that was in the Labour party’s 2010 manifesto?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I suppose that we should not be surprised that the Labour party in opposition has abandoned everything it said in government, but for it to abandon so quickly so many of the things it said even in its manifesto is pretty dramatic.

Jonathan Ashworth: If I may say so, I think that the Secretary of State and the Government have been at sixes and sevens over this issue in recent weeks and they would be better off dropping this disastrous Bill. However, may I press the right hon. Gentleman on the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife
	(Thomas Docherty)? If he now agrees that the amendments are significant, as the Deputy Prime Minister has boasted, does that mean that the Prime Minister’s spokesperson was wrong to downplay them as a mere reassurance?

Andrew Lansley: I am clear that sometimes we need to ensure through amendments that we not only achieve the effect that we intend, but reinforce it in legislation. Some of them will reassure, and some will have significant effects directly on the governance of the NHS.

Brandon Lewis: To avoid the continuation of the erroneous—that is the word, I think—statements from the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the GP survey continually referred to was filled in and returned by about 6% of GPs only, and therefore is not reflective of the views of GPs across the country, such as those at HealthEast, who are keen to get on with commissioning quality health care for their patients?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I have the benefit, as do many of my colleagues on the Government Benches, of talking to GPs across the country, individually and in clinical commissioning groups. The issue to address is not the distortion of legislation and its effects but realising benefits for patients. That is where we are. We want to achieve and improve quality for patients. That is where GPs are, where nurses are and where doctors and health professionals are. The legislation is part of the broader process of devolving responsibility to them and patients to allow that to happen.

Caroline Lucas: What is the Secretary of State most worried about: the frightening chaos of the £1 billion commissioning underpinning the reforms that will benefit Circle health care, United Health, PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, McKinsey and the rest at the expense of patients; or the personal embarrassment that he would feel if he did what he should do—if he listened to the professionals and the thousands of people who have signed the e-petition—and dropped the Bill?

Andrew Lansley: I will tell the hon. Lady what most frightens me: it is that if we had carried on the inheritance from Labour, with waste and bureaucracy escalating and a year-on-year reduction in productivity in the NHS, in a financially challenged environment the quality of patient care would have suffered. At the moment, we have an NHS that is doing magnificently well at raising performance across the service while transforming itself to meet future challenges.

Angie Bray: This feels like groundhog day—nothing ever seems to change. Every time the Labour party brings this issue to the House, we hear the same statements, questions and scaremongering. Does the Secretary of State agree that we hear nothing new from the Labour party? All we hear is the same scaremongering—nothing new, no new thinking.

Andrew Lansley: I bring good news to my hon. Friend. Out there in the real world, things are changing: there are clinicians, doctors and nurses across the country who are taking the opportunity of this responsibility to
	improve services for patients; there are patients who realise that they will get additional voice and choice; and there are local authorities that realise that, through their health and well-being boards, they can use this to drive improvements in health for their population. Those are the things that are changing. Unfortunately, not only is the Labour party not changing but it is going backwards.

Diana Johnson: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), but it struck me as gobbledegook. Will he spell out in plain English the additional safeguards to the private income cap that the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to ensure that foundation trusts cannot focus on private profit before patients?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will have to look at the amendments tabled in the other place tomorrow.

Jeremy Lefroy: Will my right hon. Friend detail for the House how the Bill will help to improve patient safety and quality of care, which are so important to my constituents and those of everybody in the House?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because there are a number of ways in which I think this issue will be important. First, for the first time, how we improve patient safety will be published in a consistent way, as one of the five domains of the outcomes framework. Secondly, that will be demonstrated by achievement—for example, we have the lowest ever levels of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and clostridium difficile infection. Thirdly, the NHS Commissioning Board, which will be established under the legislation, will take national responsibility for the delivery of patient safety, linking it directly to commissioning, whereas in the past the National Patient Safety Agency was an organisation on its own and was not directly linked to the exercise of commissioning responsibility.

Stephen Mosley: In Chester, we are seeing the effects of tens of thousands of patients fleeing the NHS in Wales to seek better treatment in England. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that there is nothing in the Bill that will cause the English NHS to be as bad as what we see over the border in north Wales?

Andrew Lansley: Not only are the Labour Government in Wales cutting the budget of the NHS, where we are increasing it, but the situation is as my hon. Friend describes, with 91.6% of patients in England being seen and treated within 18 weeks, whereas in Wales the comparable figure is just 68%.

Jason McCartney: This urgent question has been very much a repeat of last Wednesday’s lengthy debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last 50 or so minutes has been more about spiteful politics than about policy and patient care?

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my hon. Friend, but fortunately this urgent question has given me another opportunity to remind everybody in this House and beyond that this
	Government’s purpose is to empower patients, get front-line doctors and nurses in charge in the NHS, cut our tiers of bureaucracy and improve the quality of care for patients.

Mr Speaker: I thank colleagues for their succinctness, which enabled 53 Back Benchers to question the Secretary of State in 42 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. I am indebted to the House.
	Under the terms of Standing Order No. 24, I now call Mr William Cash to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, he has three minutes in which to make such an application.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No.  24 )

William Cash: I seek leave to debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the legal and other action now to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in upholding the rule of law and protecting UK interests in respect of the nature and content of the treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance in the economic and monetary union. In my remarks I shall refer to it as “the treaty”.
	This is not an EU treaty. The fifth draft was made available only immediately before the last European Council. It confers functions on EU institutions, including the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The importance of this matter is that the treaty—a non-EU treaty—is between only 25 of the 27 EU member states, the Prime Minister having exercised the veto. However, the treaty makes use of certain institutions of the EU, in particular the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The United Kingdom Government have expressed grave reservations about the legality of the arrangements, as demonstrated by the recent letter from the UK ambassador to the EU, Sir Jon Cunliffe, to the secretary-general of the European Council, which has been placed in the Library. Concerns expressed by pre-eminent lawyers about the treaty include concerns about breaches of European and other aspects of the rule of law, both in principle and by reference to specific articles of the treaty.
	The urgency of the matter arises from the fact that there is a European Council meeting on Thursday 1 March, which the Prime Minister will attend. The question of the legality of the treaty and whether the Government intend to take the issue to the European Court of Justice is a matter of great urgency, given that other member states and their Parliaments, such as the Bundestag yesterday, are deciding the issues and the ratification of the treaty. In respect of the United Kingdom, there are legitimate concerns about the legality of the conferral under the treaty of those functions on the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, which are institutions of the EU.
	The European Scrutiny Committee is taking evidence on the treaty. Last Thursday at business questions, the Leader of the House declined the request I made as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee to allow a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House. We are holding an inquiry into the treaty and its legality. The Foreign Secretary has twice declined the unanimous request of the European Scrutiny Committee to appear before the Committee in reasonable time, although the Minister for Europe did give evidence last Thursday.
	It is essential that the United Kingdom Parliament, on behalf of the voters of the UK who are affected by the treaty proposals and the Government’s decision on the question of legality, debates this subject as a matter of urgency. My proposal is supported by many Members of Parliament. I suggest that the Attorney-General attend the debate. I would of course be grateful for the
	support of the House for my proposal for an emergency debate to be held before the European Council, which takes place on Thursday this week.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Members may sit at this stage. They are ahead of themselves, but we are grateful to them. They are not backward in coming forward.
	The hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, legal and other action now to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in upholding the rule of law and protecting United Kingdom interests in respect of the nature and content of the treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance in the economic and monetary union.
	I have listened carefully to the application from the hon. Gentleman, and I am satisfied that the matter that he has raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?
	Application agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Members will be pleased to know that there is no requirement for me to count them, although I hope that I would be capable of so doing, as no objection has been voiced. The hon. Gentleman has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow, Wednesday 29 February, as the first item of public business. It will last for three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the hon. Gentleman’s application.

Eradication of Slavery (UK Company Supply Chains)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.  23 )

Fiona Mactaggart: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require retailers and manufacturers in the UK to make annual statements of measures taken by them to eradicate slavery and human trafficking and exploitation from their direct supply chains; to require large retailers and manufacturers to provide customers with information about measures taken by them to eliminate slavery and human trafficking and exploitation; to provide victims of slavery with necessary protections and rights; and for connected purposes.
	This House is rightly proud of its contribution to the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade 200 years ago, but a lesson that we need to learn is that we cannot be complacent. It is shocking that in the last quarter of a century the existence of modern forms of slavery has actually grown. From child labourers on west African cocoa farms to Chinese prisoners being exported to the Maldives to build infrastructure projects, slavery is thriving around the world. As consumers, we enjoy the cheap products that forced labour has helped to deliver. The aim of my Bill, which is modelled on legislation already in force in California, is to ensure that consumers know when forced labour has been used to make a product that they buy. Armed with that knowledge, they might well choose an alternative.
	The Bill would require large UK manufacturers and retailers to report on the following issues in their annual reports and on their websites. They would have to report on how they verified product supply chains to evaluate and address the risks of human trafficking and slave labour. They would have to describe the audits that they conducted to ensure that suppliers adhered to company standards. They would need to certify, through direct suppliers, that the materials used to make a product were from countries that did not engage in slavery and human trafficking and that complied with anti-trafficking laws. They would have to describe their procedures to ensure that employees and contractors maintained company standards on human trafficking and slavery, and the training on human trafficking that was provided to personnel working in supply chain management, focusing on where the risk was greatest. In addition, my Bill would place a duty on a company that uncovered trafficking or slavery within its supply chain to provide remediation to victims. This could include education for children, or refuge or payment to adult victims.
	Clearly, such a range of responsibilities would be a burden on a smaller company, so the reporting requirements of the Bill would apply only to companies that generated sales worldwide of at least £500 million. That stretches from such companies as Ocado to Tesco via brands such as L’Oréal and Imperial Tobacco, and it excludes smaller companies. The burden is not fundamentally a regulatory one; it is a responsibility to report. My belief is that, confronted with knowledge of such a practice within their supply chain, most successful companies would want to drive it out. Customers would also want to choose slavery-free products.
	So what do I mean by slavery and trafficking? In 1930, the International Labour Organisation convention concerning forced and compulsory labour defined slavery in a way that included
	“all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.”
	This century, the UN protocol on trafficking in persons defines trafficking as
	“the recruitment…(etc) of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion…(etc) to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs…Most simply, slavery covers anyone who is forced to work without pay, being economically exploited and unable to walk away.”
	It is an archaic and demeaning practice, yet as the campaign group Slavery Footprint, which can provide people with a phone app to count how many slaves are working for them, points out, people are made vulnerable to this kind of exploitation by high rates of unemployment, poverty, crime, discrimination, corruption, political conflict or cultural acceptance of practices.
	If we all agree that slavery and trafficking are wrong, why has more not been done? I want to recognise that some companies have done good work to eliminate slavery. Let us take chocolate, for instance. In 2001, the global cocoa industry committed to ending child trafficking in its supply chains through the US-based Harkin-Engel protocol, but it worked too slowly. By 2009, it was estimated that there were still more than 1.8 million children working in the cocoa industry, many of them trafficked.
	Progress is now being made. As the MP representing Mars chocolate factory in Slough, I am proud to say that in 2009 it committed to certify independently its entire cocoa supply by 2020. Mars launched the first Rainforest Alliance-certified chocolate bar in the UK —Galaxy—in 2010, and will go Fairtrade with Maltesers
	this summer. I gather from its competitors Nestlé that KitKat is also being certified by UTZ.
	John Lewis Partnership is an example of a retail company that is acting. It has explicit requirements in its suppliers’ code of practice, which is available on its website, to prevent the employment of children and the use of forced labour. Many smaller UK companies that supply large companies based in California are already being required to report as part of their supply chain audit.
	Not all the Bill’s sponsors, who include 11 Members from six different parties, will share my concern about abuse of the process whereby unemployed people can get work experience in retail stores here in Britain. This can be a great chance to learn about the world of work, but in some cases in my constituency, people have received no training, have been used to substitute for paid labour and face withdrawal of benefits if they discontinue the placement after the first week. The Bill was not designed to address that problem. Indeed, when I conceived it, I thought its application to UK-based companies would not extend beyond parts of the agriculture and food industries that were already regulated by the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. However, if we are not vigilant, exploitation will not be confined to the poorer countries where it thrives most. In enabling public information to be provided, the Bill aims to use the power of the purchaser to prevent slavery and exploitation.
	I hope that by raising the issue and debating it, we shall accelerate progress towards the eradication of slavery from the supply chains of every major UK company before the decade is out.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Fiona Mactaggart, Mr Richard Bacon, Hugh Bayley, Tom Brake, Michael Connarty, Mark Durkan, Jane Ellison, Dr Julian Lewis, Caroline Lucas, Siobhain McDonagh, Jim Shannon and Jim Sheridan present the Bill.
	Fiona Mactaggart accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed (Bill 311).

Estimates Day
	 — 
	[5th Allotted Day]

VOTE ON ACCOUNT 2012-13

Department for Transport
	 — 
	Transport and the Economy

[Relevant Documents: The Third Report from the Transport Committee, on Transport and the Economy, HC 473, and the Government response, HC 962; and the Fifteenth Report from the Transport Committee, on Counting the cost: financial scrutiny of the Department for Transport 2011-12, HC 1560.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—
	(1) resources, not exceeding £3,413,771,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,
	(2) resources, not exceeding £3,478,411,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a sum, not exceeding £5,850,719,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Francois.)

Louise Ellman: I am pleased to have the opportunity to launch a debate on two reports from the Transport Committee about expenditure by the Department for Transport. The first, “Transport and the Economy”, considered how spending on transport could boost economic growth, and was published last March. The second, “Counting the cost”, was published only last week. That report follows up important aspects of our earlier work and comments on changes to departmental expenditure plans, particularly the new transport projects announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn.
	I should begin by putting the Department’s expenditure into context. In 2010-11 the Department’s budget was £12.8 billion, which was split between capital projects and ongoing resources spending. As a result of the spending review, that budget was due to decrease by 15% in real terms by 2015. Resource spending, covering items such as local authority grants and the bus service operators’ grant bus subsidy scheme, was cut by 21%.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend. During the last two or three months, I have observed an increasing number of complaints from constituents whose bus services are being cut in Runcorn and Widnes. Has the Committee made any assessment of the wider impact on bus services throughout the country?

Louise Ellman: The Committee investigated the impact of spending cuts on bus services, and found that cuts had been made in more than 70% of transport authorities. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that it is currently re-examining the issue.
	The cut in the bus subsidy scheme was larger than the 11% cut in capital spending. The situation has changed a little following the autumn statement, with some extra money provided for capital projects
	The fact that most of the Department’s budget is spent by external agencies, specifically Network Rail, Transport for London and local authorities, makes it more difficult for the Department to have detailed control over those areas. However, the Department was generally regarded as having emerged relatively well from the spending review, despite the significant cut in its budget. I welcome the Government’s statement that they believe that spending on transport infrastructure can help to boost the economy.
	It is important to recognise that congestion on the road, rail and air networks remains a major constraint on connectivity and growth. There is clear evidence that relieving congestion by providing new capacity helps to increase productivity and promotes economic development. It is also important to note that congestion is not the only indication of the need for transport investment, particularly where regeneration is required and disparities are evident.
	The last major Government study of the relationship between transport and economic growth was the Eddington report, commissioned by the previous Administration. It showed that transport is necessary for economic growth, but of itself is not sufficient. To be effective, transport and economic development must go hand in hand. Building transport links to Canary Wharf regenerated the area because that was linked with an economic strategy. It is not clear that the Government appreciate the significance of this point made strongly in our report.
	Our report expressed concern that the abolition of regional structures may lead to the absence of economic development strategies required to maximise the potential of transport investment across local authority boundaries as well as making it more difficult to prioritise transport projects of wider significance. The Department has encouraged the local enterprise partnerships to fill that gap and it is now suggesting that transport funding could be devolved to groups of local authorities and LEPs. How will this work in practice, however? This new approach to regional planning might work well in some areas but could struggle to take off in others, and there will be parts of the country which lack a strong voice or which fall between two strong regional centres and are overlooked by both.
	The Department did not identify the issues it is seeking to tackle through its spending on transport. For example, the Government state that they want to “rebalance the economy”. That can mean a number of different policies, perhaps including more private sector employment, reducing disparities between regions, or reducing reliance on the banking sector and encouraging manufacturing. How are the decisions on transport spending related to these objectives and what assessment takes place to identify which transport modes are most appropriate to deliver them? How is the balance of spending between road and rail determined? Has any assessment been made of the significance of the absence of an aviation policy on economic activity generated by international connectivity? The answers to those questions are not clear. That is because the Department does not have an explicit transport strategy and lacks a coherent framework for deciding which transport schemes to prioritise.
	I must note, however, that some progress is being made. Rail and aviation policy papers are due very soon and the Committee is looking forward to scrutinising them. There has been an important review of the Highways Agency, a national policy statement regarding ports has been agreed, and a policy statement for national networks is awaited. Will the Minister assure us that we will soon see a Government strategy for transport? That is greatly needed and has been long awaited.
	The Committee considered the appraisal that is undertaken of transport projects. There is sometimes too much focus on cost-benefit analysis: not all the costs and benefits of a project can be monetised. For example, the wider economic benefits of a project or its environmental impacts are often excluded. It is also often forgotten that the economic appraisal is just one aspect of a more complex appraisal process based on five areas, including strategic fit and project affordability. Unless an overall strategy is identified, it is not possible to assess the strategic fit of any individual investment. Greater transparency in decision making is important. No doubt we will debate High Speed 2 in more detail on another occasion, but it is notable that although a huge amount of material about the project has been published, no information about how it is to be financed has been made public.
	In respect of smaller schemes, there is often very little published information about the strategic fit or how they are to be funded. The new projects announced in the autumn statement seem to have been funded on the basis that they were ready to proceed. It is unclear whether they are necessarily the investments that offer the best value for money or that will meet transport objectives. The Department contributes significantly to two cross-departmental funds—the regional growth fund and the growing places fund—but no information is available on where the Department’s financial contributions have been invested or to what effect.
	Strategic fit should include consideration of how a scheme contributes to rebalancing the economy. The major investment that has taken place in transport infrastructure in London and the south-east is clearly necessary, but transport investment across the UK is required. Interestingly, £15 billion will be invested in Crossrail, about £5 billion of it directly from Government funds, and £5.5 billion will be invested in Thameslink, while a reappraisal is taking place on whether half a billion pounds should be invested in The Northern Way, improving rail services right across the north.
	The new transport spending announced in the autumn statement is welcome, but the analysis of the regional breakdown published by the Institute for Public Policy Research North raises concerns. It found that 84% of planned new infrastructure spending would be in London and the south-east, compared with just 6% in northern England. That works out at an average spend per head of £2,731 in London compared with just £5 in the north-east. The Passenger Transport Executive Group has produced similar information showing that transport spending is more than twice as much per head in London and the south-east than it is in Yorkshire and Humberside, the west midlands and the north-east. That imbalance is a matter of concern.

David Mowat: The hon. Lady raises an important point about the discrepancy in the level of spend in London and the south-east, which occurred under the previous Government, as the Select Committee report made clear, and is apparently continuing under this Government, as the IPPR figures that she cited made clear. Did she and her Committee consider why the methodology by which transportation schemes are assessed continues to drive an answer that skews the cash so much towards one small part of our country?

Louise Ellman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The imbalance to which he refers dates back many years and decades, spanning many Governments. The Committee did examine the issue and has stated, in recognition of it, that congestion should not be the only factor taken into account when deciding where investment should be made. The importance of economic development and the potential of transport investment in relation to that should be recognised too. The Committee made a specific recommendation on this in its most recent report, stating that the Department should publish an annual analysis of its “regional spend” and publish information about the “regional impact” of its announcements.
	More clarity is required on the information published generally by the Department about its spending decisions. When the Department’s budget was cut after the 2010 election, details of which specific items of expenditure were reduced were not published until a parliamentary question was tabled requesting that information. The Transport Committee also discovered that the Department had underspent on its 2010-11 budget to the tune of £1 billion and had returned £500 million to the Treasury. The underspend was far greater than the budget cut made during the year and it was larger than the cuts to bus subsidies, which have caused so many difficulties to bus users across the country. Funding made available for transport should be used for transport and should not be returned to the Treasury. I hope that we will all be able to have more confidence in the Department’s budgeting in the future.
	Most rail projects are agreed as part of a five-yearly control period process. We are currently waiting for the Government to set out schemes they would like Network Rail to take forward during the 2014 to 2019 period, and to identify the funds that will be available. This approach has helped to protect rail from indiscriminate budget cuts at the time of the spending review. The Chancellor’s autumn statement included support for some rail schemes, such as the new Oxford to Bedford line. The Committee has asked the Minister to make it clear whether those schemes are additional to the projects that will be announced as part of the normal funding process or are simply being brought forward for slightly earlier implementation. There is a need for much more clarity when announcements are made on whether the schemes are genuinely additional to those that have already been agreed or whether they are agreed schemes being brought forward at an earlier date.
	The National Audit Office has recently suggested that the Government should have a mechanism to reopen control period settlements in order to have more flexibility to make cuts, if necessary. I oppose that suggestion. The arrangements for rail have helped to provide a relatively
	transparent and stable way of investing, which is necessarily medium and long-term, but would be undermined if the Department could reopen earlier settlements.
	The recent strategic review of the Highways Authority has recommended that a similar five-yearly funding settlement for road projects should be introduced, and it has been suggested that that could lead to a more efficient procurement and supply chain, delivering significant savings. That is an interesting suggestion that I am sure my Committee will want to examine in due course.
	Government expenditure is essential to political decisions, particularly during a time of austerity. The Transport Committee will continue to focus on financial issues and has specific plans to examine the cost of the railway when the Government’s response to the McNulty report is finally published. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ views today and urge the Minister to support our key recommendations.

Stephen Hammond: It is a great honour to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman).
	I want to comment principally on the “Transport and the Economy” report. The report recognises, of course, that for many years transport was like Cinderella, as it rarely came to the fore and was not regarded as one of the key parts of Government policy. That was true for many years, but there has been a sea change and there is recognition both in the report and in the actions of the previous Government and this Government that the performance of an economy can be directly related to transport.
	Transport can undoubtedly boost growth and increase competitiveness, and one of the best policy interventions a Government can make is to ensure that the infrastructure allows industry to thrive. Some of the infrastructure not only benefits industry but improves the quality of life of a number of our citizens, although clearly it can be provided in a number of ways that differ not only physically but financially. Efficient infrastructure will allow efficient and cost-effective movement around national, regional, sub-regional and local networks—I think that that is implicitly recognised in the report. The fact that transport can boost the economy—the report questions its efficacy in some areas, which I wish to discuss later—is also self-evident.
	Any report that links transport and the economy is welcome, but having read both the report and the Government’s response and having listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, I would like to address one or two areas of slight concern and some surprise. For instance, as the hon. Lady conceded, we are discussing this report some time after its publication and so a number of its explicit recommendations have, to the Government’s credit, been covered in a number of ways. Indeed, it seemed to me that the Government were already covering a number of the report’s recommendations at the time.
	Let me pick out recommendation 5 as an example. It states:
	“The Government must explain the nature of the economic solutions that it is seeking to deliver through transport spending and how the schemes that it is supporting will achieve these aims.”
	By the time the report had been published, however, the Government had already set out those things through their transport business case. They have also set out quite clearly in their business plan some of their objectives for transport spending, as well as a vision for a transport system that is an engine for economic growth, and they have attempted to provide a greener, cleaner and fairer solution for our communities.
	Moreover, during the previous Government's period in office, many of us on both sides of the House recognised that the formula that the Department for Transport was using to analyse a number of its schemes beyond the basic benefit-cost ratio, NATA—the new approach to appraisal—had a number of deficiencies. We should recognise that the Government have set out a more embracing framework for analysing infrastructure spending. Clearly, there are the four areas to consider: the economic case; whether there is commercial viability; whether a scheme is financially affordable; and, perhaps most importantly, whether a scheme is achievable. That sort of framework, beyond what was previously in place, should provide a greater degree of rigour, for there is now more than one test. There are not only the tests in NATA or the benefit-cost ratio but a number of tests which, added together, will give a transparent and more rigorous approach to the analysis of economic transport investment. I hope that such an approach will stay in place for some time, because one of the problems with transport investment has been that for an awfully long period in this country’s history there was complete inconsistency in approaches to what a scheme could deliver. I support what the Minister has put in place, and I hope he will ensure that it is enshrined and embedded for a long period.
	I was somewhat surprised at the report’s conclusions about regional strategies and the removal of regional strategic development and development agencies. I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and I almost intervened, but as I hoped I would have the chance of catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I saved my remarks. I listened to the hon. Lady’s comments about what regional development agencies were doing for transport spending. However, I think the previous Transport Committee concluded in one of its reports—I forget which one—as did commentators up and down the country, that the variability among what RDAs delivered regarding transport was vast. It is fair to say that what the regional development agency did in the north-west in some of the delivery and spending on transport projects was well appreciated and supported. However, in other parts of the country, particularly the south-west, the RDA was felt to be failing almost everybody it attempted to help.

Angela Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the arguments and strategies developed by “The Northern Way”, which brought together three RDAs in the north of England, made a huge contribution to the development of the High Speed 2 project and the northern hub?

Stephen Hammond: Indeed I do, and I thank the hon. Lady for making that point because it helps me to make my next point. One thing that this Government have recognised is that, although there was some mix of RDAs, the reality is that a differing of approach in different areas will be the solution.
	I also think it is quite clear that the report has prejudged the efficacy of local enterprise partnerships. It seems to me that all the initial evidence, anecdotal though it is because they have been in place for so short a time, shows that they are taking their responsibilities towards transport seriously.

Louise Ellman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The report reflected the evidence that was given to the Committee. In taking this further, the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State recognised the potential gap that would be caused by the removal of the previous regional structures. Indeed, efforts are being made to replace them through other means, but the comprehensive picture and the total results of the changes are as yet unclear.

Stephen Hammond: Indeed, but the previous solution was a template solution, a one-size-fits-all solution, a “this is the way we must do it” solution, which did not necessarily reflect the economic realities. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed out, in the north of England it was not one regional development agency, but a collaboration of three. As I observed earlier, in certain parts of the country structures well below the regional level developed and delivered more efficient transport solutions.
	I hope that in reading the report the Minister will not be deflected from the idea that solutions of differing sizes will fit different parts of the country, and that LEPs have been in place for a relatively short time. Just as regional development agencies were able to collaborate and co-operate, there is little doubt that LEPs will be able to do the same. It is also true that in certain parts of the country integrated transport authorities and passenger transport authorities will provide the lead in regional structures. The clear message must be that there are differing appropriate sizes and structures.

David Mowat: I agree that the jury is out on LEPs and that the RDAs were not a panacea in this area, but the real point is that neither the RDAs nor the LEPs can compete with the velocity of spending which is so skewed away from the regions and towards London and the south-east. For example, when the Chancellor announces £30 billion of spend, of which 80% was in London, that dwarfs the amount available to the RDAs or the LEPs. The real issue is how we fix that problem, rather than tinkering with the LEPs, which I hope, as I am sure does my hon. Friend, will work in time.

Stephen Hammond: I certainly agree with the latter point. It is beyond the scope of my comments this afternoon to go into the differing amounts of regional money. I accept that there clearly is some imbalance in subsidy between varying regions of the country. It is important to analyse what that can deliver and its efficacy. It is interesting to speculate what Crossrail might bring to London in future, as opposed to what the northern hub might bring to the north. I suspect that the benefits of the northern hub might be greater than those of Crossrail. We will wait and see. I am sure the Minister and the DFT will continue to reflect on that.
	As a practitioner of the dark art of economics, I know that different economists will always have differing views on everything. Reading the report, I was struck
	by the comments of the former chief economist at the DFT. Although those may have been made only in response to the question that he was asked, it seemed to me to miss out quite a lot when he said that if one looks at the history of the British economy, it is clear
	“how little the underlying rate of economic growth has varied.”
	He went on to add that transport had done very little to affect the overall growth rate of the British economy. That seemed to miss out the fact that we have had wildly varying periods across history.
	The witness's analysis went back almost 200 years. Over that time, we have had wildly differing levels of infrastructure investment, and there have been periods when the growth rate of the UK economy has been well in excess of the 2% that he mentioned. His analysis also failed to consider the impact of under-investment, which is a well known phenomenon, how that would have dragged down the underlying potential growth rate of the economy even in a period when investment had resumed, and the potential growth rate had there been consistent investment. Although the analysis that Mr Riley presented to the Committee may or may not be valid, it seems to me that it falls foul of the law of averages. I think that the analysis should look at the potential for economic growth with a consistent approach to investment.

Richard Harrington: Having listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s argument and seen some of the evidence that was given to the Committee, it seems to me that, although it could be argued that investment in transport might not be such a direct factor in economic growth, we must also consider what would happen if we did not make that investment and this country fell further behind, which I think would lead to economic shrinkage.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend, who more than eloquently makes the absolutely correct point—the final point in my analysis of the economic situation—about the economic analysis presented by Mr Riley.
	One of the other learned gentlemen who gave evidence, Professor Goodwin, spoke of the potential for investment not to be transformational, but to be strategic—I am not sure whether he was playing with semantics. He did not like the word “transformational” but said that there was an element of strategy—I think “strategic” is the word he used. He is right that there has been a continued over-egging of the ability of certain single projects to produce the sort of result that some people hope for.
	However, if we look at the sheer size of certain schemes and the investment that this and previous Governments have made that complements and adds to what is already in place, and/or if we look at the smarter changes and smarter choices in transport packages, we will see that there is a real chance for transport and infrastructure investment to be transformational. I suspect that some of the moves on work travel packages, which aim to increase access to work, and some of the major electrification projects, which are combined with other minor schemes in parts of the south-west, will in five or six years’ time be considered transformational. In that regard, the evidence given to the Committee probably fails to recognise transport’s ability to be transformational and, more importantly, to enable economic growth.
	Moreover, the point that neither of those two learned gentlemen discussed—this is where I disagree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside—is that if transport is part of a cluster of other investments, including increases in education, access to work, economic development zones and others, its ability to contribute to the potential for economic growth is far in excess of what that would have been had the investment been made on its own. A number of people will have made a better analysis of the cluster theory than I have, but that is broadly what it says. Yet again, if transport is combined with other Government policies, its ability to have a significant impact should not be underestimated.
	I will finish with a few other remarks. I warmly welcome and support the conclusion that using transport to support and stimulate the economy and to attempt to reduce regional economic disparities is surely right. The test of the Government in that regard must be whether they are showing any understanding of those challenges. In a time when the key overriding economic priority must be to reduce the economic deficit and ensure that the public finances are put on a more stable profile, this Government are undertaking a number of measures which recognise those challenges and provide economic support in relation to it. We have seen that, significantly, through the Minister’s sponsorship of several local transport plans and investment programmes, and they are having on a small scale quite a huge impact on bus routes, local transport—in terms of local rail—and other issues.
	Equally, the support for major projects throughout the regions, such as the northern hub, which has been mentioned, the electrification of the south-west main line and the investment in the east coast main line over the past 10 years, strikes me as sending a clear message that this Government recognise the need to maintain transport infrastructure spend.
	As the Chairman of the Transport Committee pointed out, the Department for Transport has done relatively well from the overall comprehensive spending review debate, and that represents the Government’s understanding of the need for and importance of transport infrastructure.
	I have spoken principally about rail in my last few remarks, but it is clear also that we neglect at our peril the need to maintain and upgrade our roads, and some smaller road schemes will have a bigger impact than some major, strategic ones, so the £3 billion that the Government are putting into local road schemes over four years is likely to have a positive impact on local, regional and overall economic growth.
	I welcome the report, which has sponsored a debate about transport and the economy. I welcome also the Government having evidenced by their actions their understanding of the need for infrastructure in order to support economic growth and the quality of life of our citizens. I am sure that the Minister, in his winding-up remarks, will say that this is not just the start but a continuing policy of the Government.

Phil Wilson: I want to take this opportunity to raise the issue of declining rural bus services, especially in County Durham and in Sedgefield.
	County Durham is a rural area and home to many villages, most of which had a colliery at one time. When the collieries were open, people did not have very far to
	travel, but now that the collieries have closed many people find that they have to travel a long way, and many miles, to get to work, so a reliable public bus service is a necessity.
	The bus service is required not only for work, but by young people who want to go to college; by the elderly, who might want to go to hospital or to a medical appointment; by the same groups of people to see friends and family; especially by young people just starting out on their career, who may not have the money to buy a car and need the bus to get to work; and by people on low incomes. We need to think also of the unemployed, who might see a job in the newspaper or in the jobcentre that they would love to do, but who know that they cannot apply for it because there is no bus service to take them to the factory or the office.
	Concerns about local bus services have risen up the political agenda not only in areas such as Sedgefield over the past couple of years, but in the rest of County Durham. I have a steady flow of complaints from constituents who are incensed at the cuts to services, especially by Arriva, which pulls services at the last moment, without any notification or consultation. Any cancellation of a route is not well advertised. On more than one occasion, whole villages have been left without any services whatsoever. When I compare the services that Arriva has in County Durham with those that it has in London, I think, yes, we should have an excellent public transport service in the capital city, but we need something equivalent in our rural areas as well, with regulation to ensure that there is a social obligation on privatised bus companies to ensure that people can get to work.
	Bus services are being cut in our rural areas as part of the expenditure cuts to address the deficit. There has been a 28% fall in funding for councils, combined with the ending of ring-fencing of grants for bus services, a 20% cut in the bus service operators grant paid to bus companies, and a shake-up of the free travel scheme for pensioners. Pensioners now often say, “What is the point of a bus pass if there are no buses to catch because they have been cancelled?” As a consequence of all these cuts, Durham county council has withdrawn £322,000 in funding from subsidised public transport routes, leaving many villages with few or no services in the evening or at the weekend. My postbag has been full of letters and petitions about the repercussions of the changes brought about by spending cuts originating in Whitehall.
	Let me explain what this has meant in practice for people needing these services in the rural communities of Sedgefield—villages such Bishop Middleham and Fishburn, as well as Middleton St George, which is in the south of the constituency. One local constituent can no longer get to work without the help of friends, and others can no longer catch a bus and so have to use a taxi, which obviously inflates the cost of getting to work.

John Leech: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who face a problem with bus services, but does he accept that this is not a new phenomenon? Rural bus services have been poor in many areas for a long time, and the previous Labour Government did nothing about reintroducing any sort of regulation in areas such as County Durham.

Phil Wilson: There may have been a lack of regulation, but we had a level of subsidy that had not been cut to the extent that it has been since, and some subsidies that were made available have been paid back to the Treasury.

Angela Smith: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Local Transport Act 2008 brought back a level of regulation, but it was opposed by the Conservative party with which the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) is in coalition?

Phil Wilson: We can see from the lack of people on the Liberal Democrat Benches that this issue is not of particular importance to them. Whatever they said before the election, they are saying exactly the opposite today.
	I have a constituent called Mrs Hardy who lives in Bishop Middleham. She has asthma and a heart complaint and has worked at the same place for 34 years. Now she cannot get a direct route to work and arrives an hour late, and the return journey that she has to make does not take her back to her own home. She is quoted in The Northern Echo as saying:
	“I am now in the stressful situation of having to beg lifts from friends, colleagues and family and don’t know how I am going to get to work from one day to the next.”
	Her story is not unique. However, with the help of Durham county council, I have been able to get Arriva to put on a couple of buses on workday mornings so that people like Mrs Hardy can get to work. That new regime starts on 19 March. Likewise, by applying pressure on Arriva, we have been able to redirect buses around Fishburn. However, that only partly solves the problem and is not the whole answer. There must be many more employees in my constituency who find themselves in such a position.
	I have raised this issue with the Department for Work and Pensions. If somebody resigns from their job voluntarily because they can no longer get to work, they can no longer claim benefit because they are deemed to have resigned. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) responded:
	“The Jobseekers Act (1995) provides that JSA will not be paid for a period between 1 week and 26 weeks to anyone who has lost their employment as an employed earner by leaving voluntarily without just cause.
	The law does not provide guidance on how just cause should be interpreted because the circumstances in which employees leave employment are so varied.”
	The Government need to do a bit of joined-up thinking on this issue because it affects many people in rural areas around the country, who we are perhaps not finding out about. This situation needs urgent attention. The Department for Transport needs to liaise with the DWP to find out the extent of the problem in rural areas. The problems with the buses in my constituency came to a head in the new year.
	Last week, we found out from the Transport Committee report on the expenditure of the Department for Transport that the money was there to maintain the subsidy, but it was handed back to the Treasury. To use the Select Committee’s word, how “slack” is that? The Select Committee was surely correct to state in paragraph 11:
	“Money voted by Parliament for expenditure on transport should be spent on transport, not handed back to the Treasury.”
	My question to the Minister is whether, because the money has been there in the past, it will be there in the future. Will his Department push for extra funding for subsidies so that additional bus services can be provided in areas such as County Durham? There is a lot of talk about the need for growth in the economy. I respectfully suggest to the Government that it is a fundamental prerequisite of any economic growth strategy that employees are able to get to work.
	The lack of understanding in this area does not promise much for the future. There seems to have been a fundamental failure in basic arithmetic. The Department has imposed deep cuts to bus grants, leading to the axing of dozens, if not hundreds, of bus routes and to steep fare hikes, only to end up with £543 million to spare. As a consequence, Durham county council and other local authorities are getting the flak for the cut in bus subsidy and the resulting cuts in bus services. My constituents have great difficulties in getting to work, to the hospital, to college or to see friends. The Department for Transport lost £543 million down the back of the sofa, just to find it and hand it back to the Treasury. Will the Minister therefore apologise to Mrs Hardy and the many others who are having difficulty catching a bus today because of his Department’s carelessness?
	The letter from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell also states:
	“The matter of poor public transport in Sedgefield and County Durham”—
	at least the DWP acknowledges that transport in Sedgefield and County Durham is poor—
	“is a matter for the Department for Transport. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to that Department so that Ministerial colleagues are aware of your constituents’ concerns.”
	Will the Minister tell me what his Department and the DWP are doing to alleviate the situation of poor public transport in places such as Sedgefield and County Durham? Is there any joined-up thinking in Government to alleviate this problem? Finally, what plans does the Department have to re-regulate or regulate more thoroughly bus services in rural areas around the UK so that people who have jobs can get to them?

Karen Bradley: I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate. I am serving on a Public Bill Committee at the moment and will have to return to it at some point.
	I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson). I, too, will talk about rural bus services, because my constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands, as one can guess from its name, is incredibly rural. It is also, perhaps uniquely in central England, a constituency that contains neither a dual carriageway nor a mainline train station, which gives us unique transport problems. We are within one and a half hours of three international airports, but I have yet to find a way to get from one of the main motorways that surround my constituency—the M1, the M6, the M56 and various others—to my home in Leek, in the centre of the constituency, in less than 40 minutes. That shows that Staffordshire Moorlands is isolated from much of the rest of the country.
	That poses a challenge, because we want people to come to Staffordshire Moorlands. A third of my seat by geography is in the Peak District national park, which is incredibly beautiful. We have the Manifold valley, the Roaches and other places that we desperately want people to come to and—I mention this as we are debating transport and the economy—spend their money. Given our transport infrastructure, getting them there is obviously not easy.
	We have not only the beautiful Peak District national park but Alton Towers, one of the biggest tourist attractions in the country. Again, we want people to come to that great national institution, of which we are very proud. Unfortunately, anybody who has visited Alton Towers will know that to get to it, one has to travel through some beautiful villages where there can be significant traffic congestion. The challenge is to get people to come to Staffordshire Moorlands and spend their money, but also to ensure that the people who live there because of its great beauty can do business and trade with the rest of the country and globally. I recently visited a design company based in the Peak park that does business across the world and needs to be able to get to the motorways and trains, but in a way that does not damage the beautiful environment in which we live.
	I say to the Minister that I am not here today to call for great investment in new roads. Perhaps some potholes being filled in would be appreciated, but we are not looking for great infrastructure developments across Staffordshire Moorlands, merely better ways for people to travel.
	It is also worth pointing out that some of the most statistically dangerous roads in the country are in and around Staffordshire Moorlands. It is an area very much favoured by motorcyclists, particularly on beautiful sunny afternoons such as we have had over the past few weekends. Rarely does a week go by without an accident being reported in the local newspaper, very often a fatal accident. I know from my local fire service and police that the road traffic accident rate is probably the main reason for the high levels of the activity statistics that they report.
	My final point in setting the scene is that Staffordshire Moorlands is a border area. It is the most northerly seat in the west midlands, bordered by Cheshire in the north-west and Derbyshire in the east midlands. That causes specific concerns. For example, on some of our most dangerous roads there are different speed limits at different points, because they cross the borders between local authorities that have made different decisions about the appropriate limit. That causes the problem that drivers do not know what the speed limit is, because they might not be totally convinced about whether they are in Staffordshire yet. The same problem applies to bus services, which I will come to later.
	Another important business in my constituency is the great number of hauliers. Being in the Peak District national park and neighbouring the Potteries, we have great natural resources such as limestone and clay, so a haulage industry has grown up. Again, that poses specific problems.
	What transport problems have constituents raised with me? I have already spoken about speed limits, and the signposting of them is incredibly important. There is the problem of crossing borders, but also, in some villages there is a change from a 30 mph zone to a
	60 mph zone. Because of those villages being in an area of outstanding natural beauty, signage is not quite as obvious as it should be. A constituent wrote to me only this week saying that they live just on the point where the 30 mph zone starts in the village of Alton, which, as the name suggests, is next to Alton Towers. Many drivers use that road to go to Alton Towers and are unaware that they have just entered a 30 mph zone. We need increased signposting and more traffic calming measures. We have seen great success with the solar powered signs that flash up a warning that a driver is speeding and should be doing only 50 mph, 40 mph, 30 mph or whatever is the appropriate speed. Those traffic-calming measures have been more successful than others.
	I congratulate Staffordshire county council, which has been instrumental in introducing 20 mph speed limits outside schools. Some rural schools in my constituency are on very busy rural roads, and a 20 mph speed limit is welcomed by parents. I encourage the council to introduce more such limits in the rest of the constituency.
	I would be remiss in a speech about transport in Staffordshire Moorlands not to mention the ongoing local issue of road changes in Leek. That is a matter for the local authority and I am not calling on the Minister to make any specific comment on the detail, but I want to state for the record that anything that can be done to improve the ability of pedestrians to cross the road safely will be greatly appreciated. As things stand, the shops in Leek will not be accessible by pedestrians because there will be no pedestrian crossing between the car parks and the shopping area. That might sound slightly unusual, but it has been proposed and I should like to put on record my concern about it.
	The hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned rural bus services. The Minister has met one of my local bus companies—a very successful family business—and has heard its concerns. Subsidies across different local authorities are a particular concern to local bus companies in the moorlands, and some bus companies run routes across four local authority areas. Establishing what subsidy each local authority provides and what regulation and Criminal Records Bureau checks each imposes makes it difficult for private bus operators to operate in areas such as the moorlands.
	Another matter for local bus operators is school transport. As in any largely rural constituency, many schoolchildren in mine travel significant distances between their home and school. School transport provision is raised regularly with me by constituents, and particularly those whose children have to walk long distances down isolated and badly lit lanes to access a bus service to take them to their school, which in many cases is many miles from home.
	Road hauliers were probably the only group in the run-up to the election and afterward to lobby for an increase in VAT, desperate as they were for a levelling of the playing field between them and overseas haulage companies. They were grateful for the increase in VAT, but it will come as no surprise to the Minister to learn that they are pushing for a cut in fuel duty. They are also concerned about EU regulations and raise the matter regularly. Many feel that EU regulations are imposed on them that are perhaps not observed or enforced in other countries. They are keen to ensure that EU regulations
	are not gold-plated for UK hauliers. They want appropriate regulations because they understand, as all hon. Members do, that regulation and health and safety rules are necessary, but there should be a level playing field for our hauliers and those from overseas with which they compete.
	While I am talking about haulage and large lorries, I must mention quiet lanes and sat-nav. It will probably come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that numerous signs are popping up around Staffordshire Moorlands to advise drivers that the route they are recommended to take by their sat-nav is not suitable for heavy vehicles, or often even for normal domestic cars. That is becoming more important in rural areas such as Staffordshire Moorlands, and I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House have the same experience. Any pressure that the Ministry could put on satellite navigation companies to help them to identify inappropriate quiet lanes would be very much appreciated.
	One problem caused by the lack of public transport gets raised with me a lot. People are reliant on their cars, and whenever I do a high school hustings, without fail people mention car insurance for young drivers. The cost is hurting young drivers and preventing them from helping with economic growth by taking apprenticeships and attending training. They need to drive their cars to get to work, but car insurance premiums are a barrier to that.
	Although my constituency has no main line train station, as I mentioned earlier, we have an excellent heritage railway, the Churnet Valley railway, which runs wonderful steam trains every weekend. If anyone wishes to visit Staffordshire Moorlands and ride on the Churnet Valley railway, they will be welcome. It is being extended as far as the Cauldon quarry, a large cement works in the moorlands. On Sunday, I was delighted to see the number of cars around the railway lines carrying people to see the steam engines travelling through and to enjoy the spectacle of a steam train travelling through the Peak district.

Richard Harrington: I am conscious that, as has been pointed out to me on several occasions, my hon. Friend’s knowledge of Watford is limited to whizzing through on the train, but notwithstanding what she said about rural areas, I hope she understands that extensions to train services such as the Croxley rail link, for which the Government have just given funding—I am grateful to the Minister for his time and effort on that project—are also important to constituents such as mine, and do not take away from train facilities in rural areas.

Karen Bradley: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, my knowledge of Watford extends to having attended a few training courses in Watford over the years, not just to whizzing through on the train. I wholeheartedly concur that any extensions to train services in the Watford area will be greatly appreciated.
	The extension of the heritage railway in my constituency is being funded by a private rail company that has been a recipient of money from the regional growth fund—it is very grateful to the Government for that financial support. The company is looking to reopen the line to Stoke-on-Trent from the quarry, which would result in
	an enormous number of aggregate lorries leaving the roads and travelling by train, which would be of great benefit to people living in the Moorlands. The quarry owners, too, are keen to get as much on the railway as possible.

Bob Stewart: I have had the privilege of visiting Leek—it is a beautiful place—and I have seen that railway line. Perhaps it might be possible to run a passenger train on it, as well as the steam trains and freight trains. That would help without putting any more danger on the roads.

Karen Bradley: That is exactly what Moorlands and City Railways wishes to do. It would like passenger trains to return to Staffordshire Moorlands for the first time since the line was officially closed in, I think, the 1950s. There is a problem, though: part of the line extension would involve relaying track to the village of Alton to provide access to Alton Towers by train. In theory, that is a good idea, but that part of the country is an area of outstanding natural beauty and the residents along the railway track are very concerned about the proposal. Although I can see the benefits of getting traffic off the roads, it has to be done sympathetically.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend agree that such consideration for areas of outstanding natural beauty should be taken into account for all train systems, or does she limit her remarks to Staffordshire Moorlands?

Karen Bradley: I fear that my hon. Friend’s question might be related to a certain high-speed line, which is something that I was going to touch on briefly.

Jessica Lee: I thank my hon. Friend for speaking so eloquently about her local trains and infrastructure. I am sure that she agrees with me about the importance of the investment that the Government are making in local infrastructure, such as reopening the train station at Ilkeston, for which we in Erewash have been campaigning for a long time, .

Karen Bradley: I know how much hard work my hon. Friend is putting into reopening the train station at Ilkeston. As one from a neighbouring county, I am well aware that that would be a great asset to the residents of Ilkeston and the people of Derbyshire.

Anna Soubry: And Nottinghamshire.

Karen Bradley: Absolutely.
	I cannot pretend that HS2 will affect Staffordshire Moorlands directly, as it is not scheduled to go through the moorlands. My concern is that, although it is half an hour away, there is already an incredibly good high-speed rail service, with journey times of an hour and 24 minutes, on the west coast main line between London Euston and Stoke-on-Trent. Although I have my half-hour journey at the other end, it is still a fast line. My great concern is that if HS2 was introduced without imposing capacity requirements on the line, my existing high-speed train line would be lost.
	Let me make two further remarksbefore I finish. The first is about the Peak park cycleways, which I thoroughly encourage everybody to use. People will soon be able to
	cycle round the whole of the Peak park without setting foot on a road, and they will be able to get there by train. Secondly and finally, let me say something about inland waterways, although I know that they are not strictly within the Department for Transport’s remit. We have some fantastic inland waterways, but I would like more use to be made of them.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I understand that this debate is important, but if we want to get everybody in, we will unfortunately have to drop the time limit to six minutes.

Jonathan Ashworth: I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who spoke with great eloquence and distinction. She spoke a lot of good sense on behalf of the Transport Committee and I agreed with every word that she said. She is quite right to draw the link between the wider impact on economic growth and investing in and building a modern transport infrastructure.
	The Transport Committee’s recent paper highlighted the need for the Government to
	“ensure that where it approves transport schemes designed to stimulate economic growth and rebalance the economy, they are supported by convincing economic development strategies.”
	In my brief speech I will argue that electrification of the midland main line meets exactly those criteria, but although that is what I want to concentrate on, I will start by saying a word or two about high-speed rail.
	On balance I support high-speed rail, although I understand the arguments against it, not least the argument put by hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). However, I want to put a point to the Minister on which I hope he can reassure me in his summing up. There is concern among campaigners for the electrification of the midland main line that they may not see any direct advantage from HS2—that resources for the scheme will be taken away and we will never get electrification. [ Interruption. ] The Minister is shaking his head, but that is a genuine concern, so perhaps he can touch on it in his response to the debate.

Andrea Leadsom: As I will not get the opportunity to speak later, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that there is a concern about the total cost of high-speed rail, bearing in mind that the Y shape is not even known yet, and the rising cost of mitigation and compensation that is the inevitable result of that uncertainty? Does he share my concern about the impact that that will have on scarce resources?

Jonathan Ashworth: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, let me remind hon. Members that the idea behind imposing a time limit is to get everybody in. He is well placed, but every time there is an intervention, that adds another minute, which means that somebody else will drop off the bottom.

Jonathan Ashworth: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To help other Members get in, I will take no more interventions. In answer to the hon. Lady, I recognise that concern, but on balance I think that HS2 is a good investment for the economy. However, I want to focus on the midland main line, if she will allow me.
	I would be grateful if the Minister passed on my thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who last night kindly met me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the deputy mayor of Leicester, Rory Palmer, to discuss electrification. It was a good meeting, and I was grateful for the way she responded to our questions.
	I would argue that electrification makes economic sense. The midland main line is the slowest northbound route out of London. It is the only main line to London that has not been electrified and where there are no immediate plans for electrification. Electrification would mean improved journey times, improved performance times and improved reliability. Crucially, electrification ought to provide good value for money: estimates show that savings in operating costs and increases in passenger revenues would greatly exceed investment costs. Full electrification along the line would reduce the costs of rolling stock, energy and maintenance and would therefore meet the aspirations of the McNulty review. It would bring huge benefits to cities such as Leicester and to the east midlands as a whole, as well as to Sheffield and South Yorkshire.

Angela Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increased relationship between Rolls-Royce and Sheffield means that connecting Derby and Sheffield more efficiently would be good for the economies of both cities?

Jonathan Ashworth: I said that I would not give way again—my apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is quite right, though: Rolls-Royce is a major employer in Derby and elsewhere in the east midlands—in Hucknall, for example—and connecting Derby and Sheffield in that way is crucial for the economy.
	One analysis has shown that the electrification of the line would benefit the economy by £12 million a year and by almost £450 million over the appraisal period, which makes an overwhelming case for it. It would also improve our links with Northamptonshire, making it easier for me to visit the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) should I wish to do so, as well as the links between Derby and Sheffield. All estimates suggest that the conurbations served by the midland main line are set to grow—between 2000 and 2010, the population of those areas grew by 300,000, and estimates suggest that it will grow by 800,000 by 2030—so in addition to the economic reason for the investment, there is also the simple reason of population growth.
	The trains currently running on the route are diesels, and research suggests that CO2 emissions could be reduced by 43,000 per annum as a result of electrification. There is therefore also a good environmental argument for pressing ahead with electrification. There is another strong value-for-money argument, which is that electrification would result in immediate job creation along the line, it would boost the economy, and it would help cities such as Leicester to attract more inward investment. I am sure that it would do the same for other
	cities in the region and in South Yorkshire. It would bring long-term advantages to Leicester and the wider east midlands, and it will therefore be crucial for our region in the next few years.
	As I said, I am grateful to the Minister of State for meeting us last night, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State replying to this debate will pass on my thanks to her. Last week, at Transport questions, the Minister of State told me:
	“The electrification of the midland main line has been prioritised by the industry in its initial industry plan, which will form an important part of the decisions that we have to make on what will be funded in the next railway control period.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 1012.]
	That answer aroused a great deal of excitement that evening’s edition of the BBC’s “East Midlands Today”, and in my own fine newspaper, the Leicester Mercury. If the Under-Secretary wants star billing on “East Midlands Today” this evening, or in the Leicester Mercury, the Nottingham Post or the Derby Evening Telegraph, he need only get up and announce from the Dispatch Box that he is going to strike while the iron is hot, build on the profile that the Minister of State already has in the east midlands, and say yes to the electrification of the midland main line.

John Leech: I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of our Select Committee, on securing this debate and opening it this afternoon. The contributions so far have been varied, covering a wide range of transport issues from up and down the country. I want to concentrate on the specific elements of the Committee’s “Transport and the economy” report that deal with the role of transport in rebalancing the economy.
	During this time of economic uncertainty, transport must be a key factor in stimulating growth. To their credit, the coalition Government have learned from the mistakes made by previous Governments during economic downturns and prioritised investment in transport infrastructure. While other Departments saw an average reduction in capital expenditure of 29%, the transport capital programme was reduced by only 11%, with Treasury forecasts that by 2014-15 capital investment would be higher in real terms than it was in 2005-06. This has meant that a number of capital schemes have been able to go ahead that would almost certainly have faced the axe in previous economic downturns.
	As a northern MP representing south Manchester, I welcome the Government’s commitment to economic rebalancing and reducing the north-south divide. This received a cautious welcome, I would say, in the Select Committee report. Transport funding has consistently favoured London and the south-east to the detriment of areas of the north and the south-west. If we are to see a rebalancing of the economy, this needs to be reflected in current and future transport funding.

Fiona Mactaggart: On that issue, I share the view of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) that some projects in the south
	are essential to UK inward investment. More specifically, I would say that Heathrow is the only hub airport in Europe that does not have a rail link to its immediate hinterland. It has one to London, but nothing to the Thames valley, which is the most productive area for inward investment in the UK and is obviously essential to get growth in Britain.

John Leech: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. It is fair to say that the Government have prioritised some schemes in London and the south-east—the Crossrail project, for instance, which has received an enormous amount of money. Other parts of the country have certainly received significantly less funding over a long period.
	There are some encouraging signs, however. In Manchester, rail capacity and journey times will benefit greatly from the additional electrification work, including that of the TransPennine Express, and the funding for the Ordsall chord. Congestion will be eased with the completion of the airport link road—a scheme for which my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) have been campaigning for many years. Metrolink extensions have also been given the green light and are under construction, including within my constituency.
	From a Manchester perspective, two projects hold the key to whether the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the economy will be followed through to its conclusion. The first is high-speed rail, and the second and more urgent is the funding for the northern hub, which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), will be sick of me raising with him on so many occasions.
	The debate about high-speed rail will drag on, with supporters and opponents making arguments and counter-arguments about whether the real economic benefits are predominantly for London and the south-east. However, what cannot be disputed is the fact that the north will see the greatest possible level of benefit only once high-speed rail reaches Manchester and Leeds. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the next phase of the high-speed rail network, but I want to know what the Government are doing about bringing forward the timetable, so that we do not have to wait another 20 years before we reap the full benefits.
	I recognise that for once the Government are looking towards our transport needs for the next 100 years rather than for the next 10 years, but we need to do more to bring forward the time scale so that the regions can benefit as soon as humanly possible.
	From Manchester’s perspective, however, the real test for the Government will be whether or not funding will be forthcoming for the northern hub. With £80 million already secured for the Ordsall chord, the complete hub scheme will cost only £560 million in total—and possibly less, given that some elements of the project are already included in other committed individual schemes. We should compare this to the billions of pounds that the Government have committed for Crossrail.
	In a Westminster Hall debate in January, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is not in his place this afternoon, calculated that three months of Crossrail payments would pay for the whole of the northern hub. I am not sure how accurate
	the hon. Gentleman’s maths is, but it certainly puts into perspective the difference in funding levels for the two schemes. At a cost-benefit ratio of 4:1, with an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 new jobs and a £4 billion boost to the economy, the northern hub is the opportunity for the Government to show their commitment to rebalancing the economy.
	I questioned the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), during the Select Committee inquiry, and she said that the northern hub
	“must be a really strong contender for support in the next railway funding settlement control period.”
	She went on to confirm the Government’s intention to try to close the prosperity gap between the regions, saying:
	“One of the ways in which we could do that is by targeting our transport spending on projects which will generate growth in different regions.”
	Well, I could not agree more. If the Government are serious about economic rebalancing, they need to confirm the funding for the northern hub, and not just in a piecemeal way. The Government need to come up with all the cash in control period 5.
	In the short time left, I should like briefly to raise two other issues mentioned in our report. The first relates to the dependence of transport priorities on local circumstances. A one-size-fits-all or a Government-know-best approach will not work. In line with the coalition Government’s localism agenda, there needs to be more local determination of what works in each local area. National Government is not well placed to decide what is best for an individual area and what will best support economic growth. Metrolink has been a massive success in Manchester, driving economic growth and stimulating regeneration to areas such as Salford Quays and Eccles, as well as encouraging modal shift in areas such as my constituency.
	The need for local decision making was reflected in the report’s conclusions—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Angela Smith: I start my short contribution by paying tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who has shown astounding leadership for some time. I am particularly proud that this report is being debated today, as I was a member of the Select Committee when we first met after the election. Indeed, I was one of those calling for this inquiry, so I am particularly pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate.
	The report on “Transport and the economy” is an important one. We have heard broad statements and warm words from the Government for some time about transport and its role in supporting economic growth, but there is no sense of how their decisions on transport fit into a strategy, and no clear sense of how any particular scheme announced by the Government will fit into a strategy for economic growth. Nor is it clear how the Government’s decisions will help to deliver their stated intention of rebalancing the economy. I therefore welcome the report’s recommendation that a
	White Paper on transport and the economy be produced exactly to clarify that point. The report is important, too, because it makes clear that investment in transport infrastructure needs to be linked to plans for economic development. HS2 provides a good example.
	The argument for HS2 is partly about capacity, so it relates strongly to the role cited in the Eddington report for transport investment to reduce congestion, thereby removing barriers to economic growth. HS2 is also about bringing economies across the country closer together, improving the dynamics of those relationships—in other words, the agglomeration benefit.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that unless some time line is put on extension of HS2 further north, there will be considerable cynicism in areas like the north-east that a great deal of investment will be made that will have very little economic impact on such regions?

Angela Smith: I wholly concur. In fact, if we are to maximise the agglomeration benefits of HS2, I would argue that the economies—from the far north to London and the south—that are linked by the HS2 line must have clear strategies in place for economic development in order that the transport investment represented by high-speed rail can perform to its full potential.

Phil Wilson: It is obviously vital that the HS2 route eventually reaches the north-east of England. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of it, but Hitachi is building a train-building facility in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency. It has already said that if this project goes ahead, it will be bidding for the rolling stock.

Angela Smith: That illustrates my point about the need to have clear plans for economic development in place alongside plans for transport investment.
	The report is also important because it points out very clearly that there is a lack of transparency and consistency in the decision-making process at the Department for Transport. Finally, it is important because it points out that the removal of regional structures created by the last Government risks creating a vacuum in effective planning for transport infrastructure.
	I want to focus particularly on the report’s recognition that the Government should produce a White Paper explaining explicitly how their plans for transport investment will be linked to their plans for the economy more generally, and in particular explaining their plans for rebalancing the UK economy. Rebalancing is important not just to the economic development of areas such as the north-west and Yorkshire but to the whole country, including London and the greater south-east.
	We need transport investment to maximise the potential for a more dynamic set of relationships between economies across the country. HS2 is a case in point. According to The Northern Way, its potential impact of £13 billion would deliver at least £3 billion of economic impact to the north. The point is, however, that its economic impact will affect the whole country, and therefore potentially benefits everyone.
	What do we need if we are to rebalance the economy in transport terms? I believe that we need three things. First, we need more transparency and greater consistency in decision making, so that we can hold the Government
	to account in relation to their stated aim of rebalancing the economy. Secondly, we need political bravery: we need to use investment to maximise economic development in areas such as the north of England, and to remove barriers to growth in those areas. Thirdly, we urgently need to know more about how the Government will develop sub-regional, regional and even cross-regional structures enabling them to produce sound, well-thought-out strategies for the delivery of transport infrastructure.
	The removal of the regional development agencies and, by definition, The Northern Way group of RDAs, has left a vacuum in regional planning, especially—as the report points out—in the context of their role in supporting regional economies. Moreover, the local enterprise partnerships have not been thought through. How will these new structures working at sub-regional and city-regional level work structurally across LEP boundaries to deliver what our regions need?
	The north of England is a perfect example. As a result of The Northern Way and its superb work in developing arguments and strategies relating to transport, the case for the northern hub has been clearly made and accepted even by the coalition Government. The northern hub is needed, of course, to tackle congestion on the northern rail network, thereby helping to remove barriers to economic growth; but it is also needed in the context of the decision to go ahead with HS2. It is important that we deliver both projects in order not just to reduce congestion on the network but, as I mentioned earlier, to maximise the potential benefit of HS2.
	If we are to maximise the potential of HS2 to make the relationship between the economies of the north and London more dynamic, we must also ensure that those agglomeration benefits are spread across the north. If that is to happen, the Government must recognise the importance of transport infrastructure in supporting economic development plans. In particular, they must recognise our great northern cities as hubs for economic development. They must recognise the importance of greater connectivity—not only with London, on a north-south axis, but on an east-west axis, between the northern urban centres, and with international gateways not just at Heathrow and Gatwick but at the mouth of the Humber and Mersey rivers.
	We need regional planning. As the report says, without it there will be a risk that choices will be made on a basis that discriminates against weaker economies. There is already an example of that in the form of the Government’s decision to electrify the Leeds-to-Manchester cross-Pennine route, which discriminates against what I call the third point of the golden triangle of the north: the city of Sheffield.
	We need the Govt to recognise the broader context of an economic policy that involves stimulation of the economy and the role that transport could play in it. Long-term infrastructure projects should be brought forward, as outlined in Labour's alternative plan for jobs and growth, but instead we are seeing significant cuts in investment, such as the £759 million cut on top of the £528 million efficiency savings supported by Labour.
	We also need the Government to recognise the spending disparity between the north and the south. The Passenger Transport Executive Group has produced some interesting figures. In 2010-11, transport spending per head was
	£774 in London and £276 in Yorkshire and the Humber. The source of those figures is the most recent version of a public expenditure spending analysis from Her Majesty’s Treasury. I ask the Minister to respond to them, and to demonstrate by way of a full written explanation—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Stuart Andrew.

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate.
	Transport clearly affects all our constituencies. My own constituency forms part of the city of Leeds, which is the biggest financial centre outside London and, as such, as been hugely successful. People from throughout the county work there every day. That success has put huge pressures on our transport infrastructure, and all our railways and roads are heavily congested. As a result of that and the conversion of ex-employment sites in my constituency—particularly the old mills—into residential developments, more people are travelling to work, thus adding to the congestion. In the current more difficult economic climate, it is more important than ever for us to do all that we can to make it easier for people to travel, because that will help business to be active in a wider geographical area. An increase in economic activity will present real employment opportunities to people who are out of work.
	Given that the Government have an unprecedented deficit to deal with—let us not forget that that is the biggest threat to economic growth—it is impressive that they have been able to announce so many major transport projects. For instance, it has been announced that in my own area, in Leeds, the M62 is to be widened. Anyone who has travelled on that road will know now congested it is. The southern access to Leeds railway station will create an opportunity for the southern part of the city to develop economically. New railway stations are being built at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge, which will help with congestion and will also release £250 million of private investment. The electrification of the line between Manchester and Leeds will be a huge benefit: anyone who has tried to get on to a train on that line at peak times knows how horrendous the journey can be. Extra trains have also been provided on the Airedale line.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman—who is a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee—support my call for the electrification of the line from Cardiff to Swansea, and say no to any prospect that people will have to get out at Cardiff on the way to Swansea from London?

Stuart Andrew: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee is considering the issue of east-west travel. I look forward to his contributions, for he is a diligent member. [Interruption.] I will not say any more at the moment. I have my own area to fight for.
	HS2 means that we can now connect our great cities, create thousands of new jobs, and release desperately needed capacity. That is real investment, which can only help to increase our economic activity.
	Let me now say something about the differences in spending in different parts of the country. For years, spending per head in the north has been considerably
	less than that in the south. Under the last Government, spending per head in Leeds was less than the national average. That difference still exists, and it is important for us to deal with it. In the many transport debates that we have had during the last couple of years, Members in all parts of the House representing all parts of the north of England have raised that concern, and we now have an opportunity to do so again.
	The Yorkshire Post has led a major campaign to highlight the problem, and I praise it for its work. It has built a coalition of business leaders, transport bosses and politicians. However, although we have benefited from many recent projects, the gap is still large; and although we are starting to see a decrease, for which I thank the Government, we need to continue the trend in a high-speed way. All that we in the north, and those involved in the Yorkshire Post campaign, ask is a bit more fairness. Of course London is the powerhouse in economic terms, but extra investment is desperately needed in the north. In my constituency, the ring road is congested, the access to Leeds airport is poor and the A65 is constantly congested. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the northern hub, and investment is certainly needed in that. On a recent Select Committee visit to Wrexham, I thought I would be green by getting the train from Wrexham to Leeds. In a car, that journey can be done in about an hour and a half. It took me four and a half hours by rail, and I had to board five different trains.
	There are major businesses in Wrexham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Hull, Newcastle and Sheffield—

Andrew Percy: And Goole.

Stuart Andrew: Yes, and Goole. We must do all we can to ensure that those businesses can connect with each other and do business with each other. Connecting with each other is an horrendous ordeal for them at present. Improvements to the northern rail routes have been desperately needed for years.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have made a start. The electrification of the line between Manchester and Leeds will prove to be a great improvement that helps us economically. The north was a huge player in our industrial past, and we must give it all the resources it needs to be able to be a huge player in our industrial future. Investing in our transport infrastructure will help us enormously. The Government have got off to a good start. I just hope they can do more in the future.

Jim Shannon: I am a Northern Ireland MP and transport is a devolved matter, but I have some questions for the Minister.
	I welcome the money that will be spent on the transport infrastructure. Only one person has been injured during the construction of the Olympics stadiums and other works, and no one has been killed. The road and rail links with the Olympic village and facilities must be addressed, however. In that regard, does the Minister believe the necessary transport infrastructure is now in place for pedestrians as well as for road and rail users?
	In Northern Ireland the spend on road maintenance is about £2,800 per kilometre, compared with £12,000 in England and £7,500 in Wales. Reconstructing a road
	can be four times more expensive than the cost of maintaining it. How much of the investment that has been announced will be spent on new roads and how much will be spent on resurfacing existing roads? Northern Ireland has a policy of resurfacing roads every 25 to 30 years, and if the work is done right the first time, the road will be okay. I understand, however, that some roads have had to wait for as long as 68 years before being resurfaced. Is that situation unique to Northern Ireland?
	The Northern Ireland Executive have said that they will spend £500 million on creating and improving crucial transport routes from Belfast to other major cities and towns. That shows that they recognise the importance of our transport infrastructure. They also recognise the importance of our construction sector. The hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) mentioned construction, and it is important to create apprenticeships and other opportunities within that sector. I acknowledge that the Minister does not have direct responsibility for that, but does he have any input?
	I have recently been serving on the Civil Aviation Bill Committee, and that experience served to remind me of the importance for airports of good road and rail links. That can generate considerable economic benefits. Has the Minister considered increasing expenditure on projects around not only major airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow, but provincial airports on the UK mainland? That would also benefit Belfast City and Belfast International airports.

Gavin Williamson: The Government have reduced air passenger transport duty for Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that gives Northern Ireland a fantastic opportunity to market itself and to develop and promote its aviation industry and airports?

Jim Shannon: I entirely agree. We campaigned for that, and it has given a great boost. We are grateful to the Government. Problems could arise, however, if airports in other parts of the UK ask for the same measure.
	We should also consider our ports and ferry links. Will the spending that has been announced benefit any of the UK mainland’s ports? If the road links to Liverpool and Stranraer are good, that will be good for Northern Ireland. When I visit the United States of America, I am always struck by the ease and speed of road travel. That shows that infrastructure investment can greatly benefit people and the economy.
	We want good infrastructure to be put in place and the construction industry to benefit—and apprentices to benefit from that. We believe that better transport infrastructure will be good for regional economies and will make the roads of the United Kingdom safer.

James Wharton: Like many Members who represent constituencies far away from London, I spend a lot of time travelling on public transport—in my case, over three hours twice a week on the train down from Eaglescliffe in Stockton South. I am therefore aware of the importance of transport for regions such as the north-east and the vital role it plays
	in our regional economies, so I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak about transport and the economy and the Select Committee report.
	The report makes a number of interesting observations and recommendations. It recognises the importance of transport to our economy. That is key at the current time, when driving economic growth is so vital. It also stresses the importance of our international gateways, both airports and ports. The Government must focus on those gateways and thereby maximise the economic benefits to the country.
	Airports are important not only as international hubs, but as regional hubs. Our regional airports are very important to local economies across the UK. In the north-east, we have Newcastle airport and Teesside airport. The latter lies partly in my constituency and partly in that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), while a small part also lies in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). Recently, it has been discussed in the House on several occasions, as it has faced a challenging time of late. There has now been good news, however. It has been bought by Peel, a company that was involved previously. It has made clear its commitment to run Teesside airport as a successful passenger airport. That is precisely what people in communities across Teesside, the wider north-east area and north Yorkshire who use and rely on its services want.
	In a Civil Aviation Bill debate I raised this topic and asked whether the Government could use the licensing conditions they apply to major strategic airports to require them to retain slots for Teesside. In this debate, I shall explore another possible means by which to address the problem: the public service obligation. Will the Minister share his thoughts on the possibility of using that? Under EU Council regulation 2408/92, the Republic of Ireland established public service obligations between Dublin and Kerry, Galway, Sligo, Knock, Donegal and Londonderry commencing in 2008. This can be done; it is quite possible for a Government with the right strategic view to consider the needs of regional airports and, within existing EU regulations, establish PSOs that can protect them and enable them to prosper.
	In December 2007, a transport Minister said in answer to a parliamentary question that it was for regional bodies to apply for a PSO for Teesside airport. In February 2010, in a reply to Lord Bates, the relevant Minister in the other place confirmed that no application had been received at that time from the regional development agency, One North East. That failure by the RDA to engage constructively in finding a way to protect important routes between the north-east and the capital reflects some of the challenges that Teesside airport faces today. We have an opportunity to revisit whether a PSO should be given to Teesside airport.
	High speed 2 is not quite set to come up to the north-east yet, although we hope it will do so one day, as it is an important infrastructure investment that the Government are committed to making. They have recognised the economic benefits that reduced travel times between the capital and the regions can bring. Teesside falls just outside the envelope that will benefit from HS2, and I suspect that other hon. Members will agree with me when I say that we have the opportunity
	to make the argument that we should examine whether a PSO for Teesside should be introduced for the period until that gap is filled—until HS2 extends further north and benefits the community that I represent, along with those of other hon. Members in the region.
	I therefore wish to ask the Minister and the Department this: in the light of the answers given by Ministers in 2007 that it is for regional agencies to make a PSO request and in the light of the confirmation given in 2010 that no such request had been made, what would happen if the local enterprise partnership requested a PSO for Teesside airport? A single LEP now covers the entire airport site, even though it is in a number of constituencies, so if such a request were made, supported by local councils, business leaders and, no doubt, hon. Members, would the Government examine it? Will they consider that option? Will they constructively work with me and others to deliver it, so that the future of this important airport, which has so much potential to be a driver for our regional economy, can not only be secured in the long term, but improved to deliver a better service to my constituents? That would allow my weekly journeys down to London and back up to my constituency to be shortened somewhat from the three and a bit hours they take today. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and would be grateful for confirmation on that point, so that I can pursue the matter with the LEP. I hope that a constructive way forward can be found for this important regional asset.

Julian Sturdy: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I have a great interest in all things transport-related, from aviation and road to rail and shipping. A 21st-century Britain needs a 21st-century pragmatic transport strategy. Although politics is usually, and regrettably, played as a short-term game, transport strategies and infrastructure projects require a steady long-term commitment. It is rarely possible for such projects to deliver results within a Parliament or two, but that fact should enable us to take party politics out of the mix and unite across this House on a common goal to deliver a long-term, all-encompassing transport plan.
	On a wider note, I should stress that my interest in transport policy is not born simply of my serving on the Transport Committee; it also comes from a far more regional and local perspective. On a regional level, as a Yorkshire MP I know that transport links play a vital role in bridging the north-south economic divide, which previous Governments have failed to address. This issue is vital to providing a sustainable long-term economic recovery for our country and for the Yorkshire region.
	On a more local level, congestion and gridlock has an impact on the daily lives of my constituents. However, it is not just local households who struggle with such congestion, as businesses are being hit hard, too. The York northern ring road and the A64 act as a brake on local economic growth, bringing increasing congestion, more accidents and costly delays. As the Transport Committee’s second recommendation in its “Transport and the economy” report outlined, investment in this regard is “a high priority” so that we can support economic growth, locally and nationally.
	Travelling through or around the city of York can be an extremely time-consuming exercise. York’s infrastructure is often seen as a nuisance, but the sad reality is that it could get a lot worse, and rather quickly too. The City of York council’s draft local development plan contains some stark warning signs. It states that
	“congestion delay time across the network could triple by 2026”
	and that
	“even with all reasonably practical and deliverable transport investments in place, congestion delay across the network will double by 2026.”
	Such a frank and honest assessment is frightening. The link between transport infrastructure and economic growth is undisputable, so my fear for York and for the rest of the country is that economic growth over the next decades will become increasingly choked by the outdated infrastructure. We may want companies and businesses to invest for the long-term future in northern cities such as York, but they will require certainty that there is a long-term plan in place to deal with congestion—a long-term plan that they can buy into.

Geraint Davies: In 2014, we will have the centenary of Dylan Thomas’s birth in Swansea, and we are looking forward to massive tourism investment as a result. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that business and the people managing these things know in advance that the electrification of lines will take place, for instance between Cardiff and Swansea, so that they can plan ahead and business has good time to make that inward investment?

Julian Sturdy: Absolutely. Tourism is also a key element in York’s local economy and the congestion is having an impact on the tourism level in the city. Sadly, my local authority in York would rather tinker with small-scale schemes than take the difficult long-term decisions that will safeguard the city’s economic future. As I mentioned at the outset, we need a fearless transport strategy. We need a long-term approach to investment at a national level and implementation locally. The Government’s £3 billion of capital for local road projects outside London, to be spread over the next four years, is therefore a welcome starting point, but is that sum part of a long-term strategy for our roads? The crux of road investment is long-term, joined-up thinking.
	I shall now discuss another form of transport. We have to tackle aviation issues seriously, and we face two problems. Airport capacity in and around London is at breaking point. We should be enormously proud that our capital city has remained resilient over a number of years, maintaining its position as the best place in the world to do business. Although international politics and powers have changed, London has remained at the top table, with a positive knock-on effect for the rest of the UK. However, if we refuse to expand our capacity, we risk throwing away our the capital’s crown and, again, our economy, both nationally and locally, will suffer.

Mark Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the slack that exists in regional airports could be used to deal with the shortage of capacity at Heathrow? I am thinking, in particular, of Birmingham airport, which is just 90 miles away from Heathrow.

Julian Sturdy: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will touch on regional airports if I am able to do so, but he rightly says that there is some slack there. That is certainly the case at Birmingham, as the Transport Committee has seen on some of its visits.
	As developing nations hold the key to global economic recovery, it seems ridiculous to suggest that Britain’s creaking aviation capacity cannot or should not be expanded. I share the Transport Committee’s concern that the Government’s aviation strategy to date has been limited. However, many different ways to improve this situation exist and I am pleased that the Government are consulting on how to increase aviation capacity in the south-east. Alongside the consultation, we must look again at regional airports, as a number of Members have mentioned. Such aviation links to road and, increasingly, rail are hugely significant and connectivity must be the buzz word in this subject.
	As remarkable and impressive as our railways are, there is no denying that many parts of them are in need of an upgrade, and I am truly grateful to the Government for funding the electrification of the trans-Pennine line between Manchester and York. That is exactly the sort of upgrade that will improve links and productivity between Manchester, Leeds and York, with positive consequences for the businesses located within and among those three key northern cities, as well as play a key role in tackling the north-south divide.
	I appreciate that I have touched on a number of different issues, but that is both the beauty and the difficulty of transport. If I had more time, I would probably go further. I hope that I am not being too optimistic in saying that I truly welcome the Government’s approach. Electrification, high-speed rail, the northern hub—although I recognise that we need the whole thing on the northern hub—and the £1.4 billion for roads, to name but a few aspects, are positive steps in the right direction. I must also commend the Department for Transport for doing so much while registering an underspend in its budget. More for less is a commendable message for this Government to send out and I for one am most impressed by the Transport team.

Anna Soubry: There is a reason why so many hon. Members and so many of my hon. Friends are queuing up to speak in this debate. We all recognise the hugely important role and value of a good transport system in and to our constituencies and therefore the nation as a whole. Indeed, a good public transport system and a good transport system are the arteries of economic life. I am no exception to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who so often come together to support such projects, putting aside our party political differences.
	I do not want to repeat everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), but I agree with him very much and I hope that the Government will take on board the arguments that will, without doubt, be made by many Members on behalf of all of us on that route up to Sheffield from London —the midland main line route. We desperately want it to be improved and hope that we will see electrification, which will benefit both our region and our area. It has been estimated that the wider economic area would benefit by £400 million if that line were improved.
	I am grateful to the Government for saying that after many years—more than I would care to remember, because it would give a real indication of my age, but people have been asking for this for decades—the A453, the major route from the M1 into Nottingham city, will be improved. I am so grateful that the Government have finally given the go ahead and hope that they will now give us all a date for when that road will be widened. Anybody who has travelled along the A46 will know and appreciate what a first-class modern road can deliver, benefiting not only the motorists but our quality of life and economic growth.
	I do not want to speak for too long and I do not wish to be rude, but I will not take any interventions, because I know that many Members want to speak. Let me add one point. It is imperative that when we improve our transport system we work as much as we possibly can with the people who will benefit from it, or we will find that their lives are hugely disrupted. The tram route is an example of that. The Minister will be familiar with the debate in my part of Nottinghamshire about the tram route, which will now come out of Nottingham and up to Toton in my constituency. The proposal has been very controversial because of the route. Broxtowe Conservatives were always opposed to it, and I am proud to have been part of their campaign. I know that the arguments have been well rehearsed, but now that work has started, we are seeing why there was such opposition. It has led to considerable disruption—and there will be more—to the lives of ordinary people through the taking of gardens, the demolition of homes and so on. In particular, at the terminus of that route, very vulnerable green-belt land has been made into a housing development area. When we consider such schemes, we must look at the broader issues and the fact that there might sometimes be detrimental and harmful consequences for people who live on the route or at the end of it, and who want to protect their green belt. We have seen that in Toton, where an application has been made for some 800 homes on green-belt land, largely based on the fact that there will be a terminus at Toton.
	Unfortunately, we must always be careful when we consider how to finance some routes and extensions to public transport. Let me take the tram as an example, although I will not rehearse the many arguments about such agreements and whether there is a bias towards tram routes over bus routes. Nottingham city council—the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) might address this in her speech—has introduced a workplace parking levy to finance the two new routes. In my view, that will have a profoundly bad effect on the very businesses that would otherwise benefit from such an extension of good public transport. It is all about getting that balance right, because in Nottingham ordinary workers at many businesses, especially large ones such as Boots in my constituency, will have to pay up to £300 a year so that they can travel to work when they have no alternative but to use their car because of the inadequacies of the public transport system. Perhaps ironically, many of those workers will not be able to use the very tram that their parking levy will fund. That does not seem right or fair.
	It is a question of balance. When we take all matters into consideration, bearing in mind that better public transport provides a wonderful opportunity to fuel our
	economies, we do things in the right way. It is right and proper that the Government are determined to invest in our infrastructure, as that is without doubt the best way to make progress in our economy.

David Mowat: I, too, congratulate the Select Committee on their coherent report and I want to focus on one aspect of it, which is the issue of regional imbalances in spend and how they happen, and to give some of my thoughts on how we can avoid them. Those thoughts are about the appraisal mechanisms used in the Department for Transport and the Treasury, the approach to appraisal and the Treasury Green Book.
	Let us get the facts out of the way first. Table 2 of the Committee’s report makes it clear that in the period under review—2008-09—one region received substantially more funding than any other, and that was London. In broad terms, London received about two or three times more per head than the English regions. That matters as billions of pounds of capital spend generate high-quality private sector jobs that translate, through the power of the economic multiplier, into prosperity. The effect is transformative.
	I cannot be the only Member of the House who thinks that it is odd that under the previous Government, in 2009, the discrepancy in gross value added per head between London and the English regions doubled at a time when that capital spending was being poured into London. That discrepancy by a factor of two between the capital city and other parts of the country does not exist in any other European country; it is unique to Britain.
	I had hoped that after the election we would get all that sorted out with the new Government, and I was confident that serious attempts would be made to use the power of capital spending to fix the north-south divide. I was disappointed, like others who have already spoken, to see that in the autumn statement 84% of the £30 billion accelerated capital spend was allocated to London. Let me put it in context: that is £2,731 per head in London compared with £150 per head in my region, the north-west, and £5 per head in the north-east. I have heard Ministers talk about and challenge those figures and I would like the Minister to address that specific point.
	The difference in spend is partly but not entirely to do with Crossrail, Thameslink and the underground, but even after those projects are removed from consideration, London and the south-east still receive approximately double what is received in the north. This is very serious and makes a mockery of our attempts to use the regional growth fund, and previously the regional development agencies, to redress that balance. If we put capital spend of that quantity into one part of the country in that way, then giving £1 billion here and £1 billion there in regional spend does not make much of a difference. I am not a conspiracy theorist: I do not think that the Opposition, when they were in government, or my own Government have done that on purpose. There is a deeper issue here—a systematic bias that drives these decisions—and it is to do with the method of appraisal.
	As far as I can make out, the mechanism that the Department for Transport uses—the new approach to appraisal—leans heavily on a system of multiplying
	small, incremental changes by the number of people involved to generate the business case. The system specifically is not allowed to take into account wider economic benefits. The consequence of that appraisal mechanism, which has been used both by the previous Government and by this Government, is that there is a bias towards the parts of the country that are most congested and where the greatest number of people will benefit from relatively small changes in journey times to create a huge economic benefit. As a consequence of that system, resources for projects are continually allocated to one part of the country.

Ian Mearns: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House’s attention the disparities with proposed investment packages in transport. Ministers will try to argue this away but they cannot argue away the extent of the disparity when more than £2,500 per head of population is being spent in the south-east compared with just a fiver in the north-east.

David Mowat: The hon. Gentleman echoes the point I am making. Just to take the politics out of it, let me point out that broadly the same thing happened under the previous Government, so we go back to my previous point: something systemic is happening here in the way that projects are appraised within the Department for Transport. I do not believe that either the previous Labour Government or the current Government wished that to be the out-turn. Frankly, the resulting disparity is not even very good for London, because the consequence of having a mechanism that removes congestion is to enable further congestion to gravitate towards our capital city and we start all over again. Enough is enough—Ministers have to challenge the appraisal mechanism.
	I have thought about how the system could work and I shall leave the Minister with my suggestion. We should allocate capital budgets by region as the starting point for where money is spent. Then we would not get the issue with the north-east getting £5 a head while London gets £2,700. I understand that one risk of such a system would be sub-optimisation and that there is a need to manage cross-regional projects, but that could be done—other organisations do things of that nature. It clearly is not satisfactory for things to carry on as they are. I would like the Minister to give his view on why the appraisal mechanisms used by the Department continue to give the answers they do.

Mark Pawsey: It is a great pleasure to follow the very thoughtful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). It is not the first time I have followed him. I first did so 45 years ago when we were both at school in my home town of Rugby.
	I am pleased that the Select Committee noted the importance of investment in the transport system as a driver for growth. As a Member for a constituency in the centre of England, where warehousing, haulage and logistics businesses are a key part of our local economy, I shall focus on the road networks and links of which they take advantage. First, let me say a few words about my role before I arrived here. I was the owner of a business involved in the distribution of catering goods
	around the midlands, and an efficient road network was vital to our operation. My business was based in Rugby, because that is my home town, but I often told people it was based there because I looked at the UK and chose Rugby as the best possible place for a distribution business. We have the M1 taking us north to Leicester, Nottingham and Derby and taking us south to Northampton, Milton Keynes and London; we have the M6 taking us west to Birmingham and the west midlands conurbation; we have the A14 taking us to the east midlands, Kettering and Corby; and we have the A46 taking us south-west to Stratford-upon-Avon and the Cotswolds. The examples I am about to provide of the importance of the road network could apply to hundreds of thousands of businesses across the UK.
	My business provided a delivery service, and the measure of our performance was the number of deliveries our vehicle was able to make during the working day. The more deliveries it made, the better and more efficient my business. That was affected by the efficiency of our route planning and by how well the road network was working—by the physical layout of the roads, the opportunities to use new roads and bypasses to avoid bottlenecks, and any hold-ups that were occurring. We sold to our customers with a promise of, “Order today, delivery tomorrow,” in order to minimise stockholding. Our ability to honour that promise depended on the efficiency of the road network and we prepared our loads according to known road conditions. We would know about big contraflows and closures and we might adjust the load on a given vehicle accordingly. Having advance notice of closures and delays is important to such businesses, and I know that the DFT has improved its performance in that area. When a van was out for longer or was not able to make its deliveries, we incurred overtime payments to staff. If a customer did not receive their goods on the allocated day, we had to load the goods on to an additional vehicle at an additional cost to the business that could not be recovered from the customer.
	I also employed a team of sales people who would go out and visit customers. Again, the more calls they could make the better, and the cost to my business of an expensive executive sitting in a car in a motorway traffic jam was a significant burden. Both the delivery aspect of my business and the sales team were affected by congestion, which can be caused by overrunning works, the over-zealous placement of cones, unnecessary lane closures when no work appears to be taking place and extended motorway closures after incidents. I acknowledge that the Department has undertaken work to reduce such situations, but there are still massive frustrations to the road user and effects on the efficiency of businesses.
	It is important to consider the contribution that the distribution, haulage and logistics sector makes to the UK economy. It is estimated to be worth about £10.7 billion and to employ about 293,000 people. In 2009, the Road Haulage Association estimated, in giving evidence to the Transport Committee, that
	“a UK-based haulier pays around £25,000 in fuel duty each year for a typical articulated HGV, amounting to some £2 billion per annum for all lorries in the UK.”
	More recent calculations suggest that the industry’s annual contribution in fuel duty has risen to as much as £4.57 billion.
	The Government have announced a total of £3 billion a year of spending on new strategic road schemes up to 2015. In the current spending period, they will receive £14 billion in income while they are spending £3 billion on new road networks, so there is a massive surplus to the Exchequer that is available to the Government to spend on other services. What does the logistics industry need to help it to generate that income? It needs investment in the road network, so I am pleased that that is mentioned in recommendation 2 of the Select Committee’s report. It also needs the motorways to be kept free. Blockages and lane closures are not only frustrating but incur a substantial cost. I note that the Select Committee’s report, “Out of the jam: reducing congestion on our roads”, said that jams could cost the UK economy £24 billion a year by 2025.
	This has been a very valuable debate. My constituency will benefit from the £3 billion allocated to capital spend on road networks over the next four years and we are delighted that many projects, including the one at the Catthorpe M1-M6 junction, are going ahead. All that work together will enable us to generate economic growth over the coming years.

Neil Carmichael: It is a great honour to speak in the debate, bringing up the rear, as I often do. I am a firm believer in the link between good transport infrastructure and economic development. It is critical and one does not have to go far in this country to find proof of that. As Michael Portillo notes in his excellent programme about trains, they helped to develop the south-west and other parts of Britain, and that is also true of Europe. Let us understand and accept that. The great news is that the Government accept it; that is why they are investing so much, and quite right too.
	I am pleased to say that in my constituency, Stroud, £45 million is being invested in the redoubling of a critical line between Kemble and Swindon, so that we can radically cut the journey time and increase the number of trains on the track. That great news is signalling to people in and around Stroud that it is a place to do business, more business and better business. That is the kind of delivery that the Government are already providing, and I thank them for it.
	The previous speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), spoke about logistics, which is an important subject. I too intend to speak about logistics in the context of the supply chains for manufacturing and engineering. We have complex supply chains in this country, which are becoming more complex as the weeks and months go by because many firms are manufacturing to order and production is ever more dependent on supplies from further afield. We need good infrastructure to support a complex supply chain. Many speakers have emphasised the importance of Government working together. They do work together. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is focusing on supply chains, and it is good that the Department for Transport is providing the infrastructure needed to develop good supply chains, nurture and improve them.
	We have also been talking about regional development agencies. I cannot think why anyone would want to bring RDAs back, but apparently some do. The Government have moved to making sure that local authorities work together. A key aim of the Localism Act 2011 is to foster a duty to co-operate. We need that co-operation between local authorities so that they think strategically when they are planning anything to do with transport and economics. The two go hand in hand, as do the needs of local authorities when transport is considered. The LEPs have already been celebrated in the debate—again, quite right too. They too have to work together in the interests of good strategic planning.
	Speaking in more general terms, we need infrastructure that works and encourages communication. That is why I am a supporter of HS2. It does not go through my constituency, but even if it went nearby, I would still support it because it is right that we start to connect our big cities. We do not need to look very far on the continent or beyond to see that good connections bring about economic growth and more economic activity, so we need to promote such investment. Crucial to infrastructure is the certainty that it gives the private sector, encouraging it to add further investment. If we have a plan that people understand and recognise is a good plan, we should also attract private investment in our transport infrastructure. That is an important feature of the case for linking economics and transport policy.
	Finally, I shall say a few words about airports and ports. I note from The Economist that most people live within two hours’ drive of at least two airports, so clearly we have plenty of airports. It is important that they are flexible and able to link up the main hubs. The fact that we have so many airports is good for industry, because aviation development is an extremely important part of manufacturing and engineering. We need to make that case more forcefully.
	I have a small port in my constituency, Sharpness, which handles 600,000 tonnes of bulk material. That activity brings more activity and economic investment, so I am pleased that the infrastructure which supports that port is in place. We could improve it, but the fact that we have such a port in my constituency is good news. Any other hon. Member with a port, small though it may be, should support it because it is good for business.
	In summary, let us never forget that transport and economics often go together, and the Government are putting their money behind that.

Lilian Greenwood: I welcome the opportunity to debate the Select Committee’s report on transport and the economy. It has given many hon. Members the chance to raise constituency concerns, which I hope the Minister will respond to when he sums up.
	I was going to say that it was noticeable that almost all the speakers in the debate were MPs representing towns, cities and rural areas in the north, but then we had contributions from the hon. Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), which broke the flow somewhat. None the less, I am sure the Minister will want to reflect on the implications for
	Government policy of the concerns expressed by northern MPs and the fact that good transport links are demanded by the north.
	The Select Committee report looks at the big picture and asks some searching questions of the Government, which the Minister must answer. At the heart of the report is the Committee’s conclusion that Ministers have failed to explain how their decisions on investment in transport will deliver the economic growth and rebalancing they say are needed. Of course that could be a failure of communication, but I think it is a failure arising from the absence of any strategy or joined-up thinking from this Government.
	People throughout the country know that the biggest and most pressing problem we face is the lack of jobs and growth. There are 2.7 million people on the dole—the highest number for 17 years—representing a huge cost to the economy in benefit payments and lost tax, a huge cost to the individuals affected and their families, and a cost to their local communities, many of which, especially in the north, are all too aware of the long-term scarring effects of unemployment. The Government should have a laser-like focus on using every aspect of policy to turn things around by creating jobs, supporting industry and getting our economy moving.
	Transport should have a key role to play, but time and again we have seen this Government take decisions that send us in the opposite direction. It is not just that they have cut spending too far and too fast, but that they have made the wrong choices. Labour has not opposed £6 billion of difficult and painful cuts to the transport budget—two thirds of the cuts proposed by Ministers—but we would have made different decisions about how to spend the remaining money to protect passengers and deliver the maximum benefit to our economy. Labour would have protected additional investment in the rail and road network as part of a five-point plan for growth and jobs.

John Leech: From what the hon. Lady has said, a Labour Government would have been forced to cut capital spending even further.

Lilian Greenwood: No, I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. As I said, we have not opposed £6 billion of difficult cuts to the transport budget, whether that is capital or revenue funding, but we would have maintained a further £3 billion and we would have spent it in different ways, as I will set out.
	We would have protected £500 million for road schemes vital to economic growth, providing a much-needed boost to our construction industry. We would have made sure the £435 million needed for essential road maintenance went ahead, saving the taxpayer money in the long term, according to the National Audit Office. Labour would not have cut £759 million from the rail budget; we would have put passengers first and tackled affordability. We would not have allowed the private train operating companies to boost their profits with eye-watering fare rises of up to 11% this January, 5% more than the RPI plus 1% that the Government told passengers they could expect, which means that some people are spending more on their fare to work than they do on their mortgage or rent. That is not helping to make work pay; it is just adding to the cost-of-living crisis that households are already facing.
	Labour would put working people first by taking on the vested interests. We would not have given back to train companies the right to fiddle the fare cap, so that when we said that fare rises would be limited to inflation plus 1%, the public would know that that was the maximum rise they would face at the ticket office. We would also have been able to bring forward the much-needed electrification of the midland main line that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is no longer in her place, pointed out, is so important to improving connectivity between London, Northamptonshire and four of the largest cities in the country: Derby, Leicester, Sheffield and, of course, my own city of Nottingham. We would have started the electrification of the great western main line, but we would have gone right through to Swansea, rather than stop at Cardiff.

Norman Baker: The hon. Lady is busy telling us about all these spending commitments, but she is also saying that she would make £6 billion of cuts, so will she identify where those cuts would be made?

Lilian Greenwood: I will not go through all the cuts right at this moment, but I have already said that we would not have cut £759 million from the rail budget—[ Interruption. ] Well, the Minister has put forward £528 million-worth of savings from the rail industry in his departmental plans, and we would not have opposed that. We would happily find the same efficiencies that he says he would find, such as the £245 million from Crossrail. We certainly agree that where there are efficiencies to be found, they should be found. I could go through his entire departmental budget, but that would detract somewhat from the debate. I am happy to do that another time.
	Under Labour, there would not have been a £680 million cut in local transport funding, which is leading to a Beeching-style cull of our bus network. The Campaign for Better Transport estimates that one in five supported bus services have been scrapped. Whole communities have been left isolated, without access to public transport, and fares are rising on those services that remain. Under Labour, three quarters of local authorities would not be reviewing school transport provision, with many families being asked to pay more just to get their children to school. That increasing problem was rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) in her wide-ranging speech about the challenges facing her rural constituency. As my knowledge of Staffordshire Moorlands was previously limited to Alton Towers, I now know a lot more about it.
	Time and again the Government have chosen policies that have a disproportionate impact on the very people who need their help, particularly in these austere times. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) made that point clearly and passionately. He focused in particular on the impact of bus cuts on villages in his constituency and the real problem that that is creating not only for people seeking work, but for those trying to stay in their jobs. The unemployed, 64% of whom do not have access to a car, need buses to get to interviews and jobs. How can they get back into work if there is no bus or the fare is unaffordable? What about young
	people, 72% of whom rely on buses to get to college? How can they stay in education or training to get the qualifications they need for the future if there is no bus or the fare is unaffordable?
	Labour would be prepared to maintain investment in our much-needed bus services, but it would not be a blank cheque; we want something for something. We would reverse the cut to the bus service operators grant, but in return we would expect the bus companies to work with us to deliver a concessionary fares scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in education or training. Many people would like to get on their bicycles because it is not only a good way to protect the environment, but a cheap way to get about. We would not only protect the road safety budget, but reallocate funding to improve cycling infrastructure and give people the confidence they need to use their bicycle.
	Even for those people who do have access to a car, the situation is little better under this Government. The Chancellor’s decision to increase VAT to 20%, just when global oil prices had taken the cost of filling the tank to record levels, is a real drain on household budgets, especially in rural areas. That is why a temporary cut in VAT back down to 17.5% is a vital part of Labour’s plan for jobs and growth. It would cut the price of a tank of petrol by around £1.35 and put money into people’s pockets.
	The Government claim that one of their primary objectives is to rebalance the economy, including by reducing the north-south divide. I am not sure whether Derby considers itself to be in the north—Derbyshire always feels reassuringly like the north to me—but I do not think that the Government’s claims to be rebalancing the economy away from reliance on financial services and towards manufacturing ring true with voters in Derby. The decision to award the Thameslink contract to Siemens, which will build the trains in Germany, is a real kick in the teeth for Bombardier, the only company that designs, manufactures and assembles trains in the UK. That decision put the whole future of UK train manufacturing at risk, along with thousands of highly skilled engineering jobs not only in Derby but across the midlands.
	I welcome the Government’s admission that they got that wrong and their decision to amend the tendering process for Crossrail, but why, instead of spending months saying that they could do nothing about the process for Thameslink, did they not act to protect 1,400 jobs at Bombardier? Having delayed the project by a year, Ministers had the time and opportunity to restart the procurement process and ensure that wider socio-economic factors could be taken into consideration. They have proved that today.
	In response to the Transport Committee’s call on the Government to explain how their policies will achieve economic growth and tackle regional disparities, the Department cites the example of HS2. There is cross-party consensus that high-speed rail is the right way to deliver greater capacity and reduce journey times between our major cities. By linking to the existing east and west coast main lines, high-speed services will serve cities including not only Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds, but Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Liverpool, York and Durham. Once again, however, the Government have
	missed a trick: why are they legislating only for the first phase of the new high-speed line, from London to Birmingham, when they could have given a real boost to cities in the north by taking the whole Y route forward as one project, opening up the possibility of beginning construction in the north and the south and accelerating the benefits north of Birmingham? I hope that the Minister will respond to the pleas from his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), who asked for faster progress on HS2 to help Manchester and other northern cities.
	Labour has offered to work on the same cross-party basis to tackle the urgent need for extra capacity at Britain’s airports. The Government’s failure to set out any strategy for aviation, or even a plan to do so by the end of this Parliament, is putting jobs and growth at risk across the country. Regional airports have an important role to play. The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) mentioned Durham Tees Valley airport, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has led a local campaign on behalf of the airport, so Members on both sides of the House will look forward to the Minister’s response to that call for Government support.

Phil Wilson: The campaign in the area is a cross-party campaign. We have already arranged a meeting with the Minister of State on 24 April to discuss the public service obligation and the way forward. One of the reasons why One North East did not apply for a PSO was the cost that involved, and I am concerned about asking the LEP to do that. If One North East did not have the money, I am sure that the LEP will not. I think that we need to be a little more sophisticated in how we raise money to go ahead with this.

Lilian Greenwood: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. He is quite right that one of the effects of scrapping our regional development agencies has been to make co-ordination more difficult.
	The Government’s call for airports to be “better not bigger” is not a policy but a slogan, and the blanket ban on expansion in the south-east makes no sense, but that does not mean any backing down from our commitment to tackle climate change. Any new capacity must go hand in hand with tougher targets to reduce carbon emissions from aviation. I hope that the Minister will take forward that work on a cross-party basis.
	Tackling climate change is not just a challenge, but a huge opportunity for British business, so it is deeply disappointing that Ministers have reversed their commitment to support the development of a national public recharging network for lower-emission vehicles, instead leaving the roll-out of recharging infrastructure entirely to the private sector. That is a real missed opportunity when such cars could and should be a growing industry.
	Families throughout the country are paying the price for the global financial crisis of four years ago, and whoever was in power would have had to make tough decisions on spending, but that is why it is so important that every penny the Government spend delivers on their overall objectives, and that in turn is why Transport Ministers are failing: they simply do not have a strategy to address needs of the country. Not only are they cutting too far, too fast, but they are making the wrong
	decisions—the wrong decisions to create the jobs that the economy so desperately needs, the wrong decisions to get people back into work and to support young people in education and training, the wrong decisions to support British businesses, and the wrong decisions to ease the cost of living for hard-working families.
	It does not have to be that way. Labour would make tough decisions—we accept that there have to be significant cuts in spending—but we would ensure that all our efforts were focused on getting the economy moving again and on getting people into work. That is the only way to cut the deficit and we would ensure that every penny spent on transport served that purpose.

Norman Baker: I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I welcome the generally constructive comments from Members on both sides of the House. I shall try to answer as many points as I can in the 15 or so minutes allotted to me.
	The coalition Government’s vision is for a transport system that boosts growth and cuts carbon. By investing in transport that links people with the workplace and goods with the marketplace, we are building a more efficient and effective transport network that is an engine for economic recovery and for creating jobs; and by investing in projects that promote green growth and help people to make more sustainable travel decisions we can help to build a more balanced, low-carbon economy that is essential for our future productivity. I stress, however, that there is not an either/or choice between building a stable and strong economy and safeguarding the environment: cutting carbon and generating growth are two sides of the same coin. Both are essential objectives that transport must deliver, and that is precisely what we are delivering.
	On the question of investment, we are pleased that the Transport Committee welcomed the additional funding for transport which was announced in the autumn statement and in the growth review—and which was significantly higher than many people expected. The announcement was not only a clear demonstration of the coalition's commitment to growth, but a demonstration of our belief that improving transport infrastructure can be among the most effective ways to drive our economy forward.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) spoke on behalf of the Opposition in a contribution that I found astonishing and lacking in some reality. She referred to allegedly wrong choices, but by wrong choices I wonder whether she is referring to the A453 improvement in Nottingham, or the ring-road improvements in Nottingham, or the station improvements in Nottingham, the tram extension in Nottingham, or the other projects that we have been taking forward throughout the country—in the north and the south—on behalf of the Government.
	The hon. Lady started by saying that she would make £6 billion of spending cuts, but in fact all we had were indications of further expenditure to which the Opposition are committed: expenditure on a midland main line, on electrification to Swansea, on buses, on cycling and on road safety. It seems as if the Opposition have learned nothing. It was another charter for a great wodge of
	expenditure, and completely out of touch with the economic situation in which we as a nation find ourselves. It was cloud cuckoo land economics.

Lilian Greenwood: As I made clear in my contribution, we have identified £6 billion of cuts as set out in the Minister’s budget, with which we agree. I was talking about the areas where we would not cut but change the direction of expenditure in order to protect passengers and to stimulate economic growth and jobs. That is exactly what I set out, and I would be more than happy to discuss with him exactly where the cuts would be made.

Norman Baker: I am delighted to hear that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has written to the hon. Lady’s boss, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Transport Secretary, asking for details of the £6 billion of cuts, and so far no answer has been forthcoming.
	Our growth review package will deliver £1 billion of new investment by Network Rail, more than £1 billion to the strategic road network and £500 million for local schemes and, in particular, for schemes that can make the earliest possible contribution to economic recovery.
	We recognise that spending is one thing but that spending wisely is something else, so we are determined to ensure that every pound of public money invested in our transport system is made to count. That is why, although our rail investment programme is the largest and most ambitious since the Victorian era, we are committed to reforming the rail industry in order to reduce costs significantly and to improve efficiency. Members have today welcomed the electrification of the north trans-Pennine rail route between Manchester, York and Leeds, which is part of the northern hub project, as well as other major investment processes.
	The Chair of the Transport Committee referred in her opening remarks to her view that an explicit transport strategy was missing, but with respect I do not accept that point. She made it to the Secretary of State for Transport on 19 October 2011, when my right hon. Friend gave evidence, and I refer the hon. Lady to her own question, Q16, from that session. The Transport Secretary said:
	“To all intents and purposes, …what you will end up with…the aviation framework…the rail reform… the work being undertaken by Alan Cook to look at the Highways Agency”
	is what will produce, certainly for the medium term, a strategy. When the Committee looks at the rail reform and aviation papers, which will both be out shortly, the Chair will see that. If she is making the point that we need to look over the longer term, say over 40 or 50 years, she is making a fair point, which the Government will take on board.

Louise Ellman: The fact is that currently there is neither a rail strategy paper nor an aviation paper. They are both awaited.

Norman Baker: I agree, and we inherited that position from the previous Government, but I have already said that the rail reform and aviation papers are both due very shortly, and I hope that the Committee will do its usual good job of examining the documents and making comments to the Government following its analysis.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) was concerned about the transport business case, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who is no longer in his place, made the point that we have refreshed the transport business case, and we also have the departmental plan for transport, which sets out our priorities in the short term. The transport business case does include wider aspects of economic development, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South was concerned about, so the Government have now put in place a wide -ranging formula to ensure that those essential points are captured in our assessment of individual transport projects.
	The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) referred to declining rural bus services, a point that he had made before, but 78% of bus services are commercially run by commercial operators and are therefore not under the Government’s control, as he will appreciate. They have been affected only by the BSOG reduction, of which we gave 18 months’ notice, unlike what happened in Wales and Scotland, where bus companies were given almost no notice.

Lilian Greenwood: Will the Minister give way?

Norman Baker: I shall make some progress, if I may.
	The performance of local councils across the country varies enormously in respect of buses. If the hon. Gentleman has had significant cuts in Durham, he must consider other areas, such as East Riding and so on, where there have been far fewer cuts. Local councils have responded in rather different ways to the difficult economic situation they find themselves in, and it is not fair simply to blame the Government for that. He needs to look at his local council and at the decisions it has made in its area.
	I hope the hon. Gentleman will notice that, in trying to deal with the matter, we have given money to community transport, including in Durham. I have also announced a new fund, the better bus area fund, which his local authority has indeed applied for; and the local sustainable transport fund, which is worth £560 million and includes more money for the area than the previous Government invested over the same period, has provided funding for the Wheels to Work schemes, which I mention because he made a very fair point about the importance of ensuring that there is joined-up thinking between the Departments for Transport and for Work and Pensions. I have been corresponded with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the matter, and the discussions are ongoing because we recognise the important link between transport and work. The hon. Gentleman made a very fair point.
	On regional growth, I was disappointed that the Committee Chair quoted the IPPR’s report without question because it is incomplete and partial, as she may remember I said when I dealt with it at Transport questions a couple of sessions ago. Its figures are unreliable. Of all the transport investment announced in the Chancellor’s autumn statement and in the 14 December announcement about local major schemes, 62% by value is in the north and the midlands and 35% is in the north alone. Similarly, of the strategic highway investments
	announced in the 2010 spending review, 63% by value is in the north and midlands and 40% is in the north alone. The spend in the autumn statement for the local authority majors totals over £3 billion of regional spending, of which 35% is in the north-east, north-west, and Yorkshire and the Humber, 27% is in the west and east midlands, and only 24% is in London and the south-east. I therefore do not recognise or accept the figures in the IPPR report.

Angela Smith: The Passenger Transport Executive Group has made it clear that there appears to be no basis for the figures given by the DFT to the Select Committee, which are reflected in its report. Will the Minister undertake to give a full written explanation of the basis of the figures that the DFT is using?

Norman Baker: The figures in the IPPR report need to be questioned rather than the Department’s figures. In her speech, the hon. Lady accused the Government of a lack of transparency, but that is completely wrong. There is now more transparency and consistency in decision making than there was under previous Governments. For example, we have published the internal assessments of all 41 approved local authority majors development pool schemes. We published details of the Highways Agency’s schemes at the 2010 spending review. That is a commitment the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), made and took through at the time. Every six months, we publish value for money data on all decisions.

Angela Smith: indicated  dissent .

Norman Baker: There is no point in the hon. Lady shaking her head—these are the facts. We have also published a whole lot of transparency data sets that were previously kept secret. We have a very good record on transparency, which is very important for decision making centrally and locally.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) asked about pot holes. The amount of money being made available to deal with pot holes in the four-year period of the spending review is more than was made available by the previous Government. In addition, we have undertaken expenditure to get best practice identified across local authority works so that local authorities get better value for money and can therefore mend more pot holes or, indeed, prevent them from occurring in the first place. I recognise the importance of that matter for many of her constituents and no doubt people elsewhere in the country.
	I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the value of 20 mph limits, particularly outside schools. She will know, I hope, that I have made it possible for local authorities to introduce 20 mph limits, where they feel it appropriate to do so, much more easily and with much less bureaucracy than was hitherto the case. That has been well received by local government. She raised a fair point about school transport provision. I have been in ongoing discussions about that with my opposite number at the Department for Education, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton); indeed, I am discussing it with him again tomorrow.
	My hon. Friend asked about sat-nav. Next week I am holding a sat-nav summit to bring all the various players together. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members clearly do not think this is a serious issue, but I can tell my hon. Friend that Government Members do think so. We do not like HGVs going down inappropriate roads and getting stuck. If Labour Members do not mind that, that is up to them, but we are dealing with the issue in government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) referred to the significant road and rail investments in the north-west. He put matters into context fairly, and I am grateful for that. He also, rightly, highlighted his support for HS2, which is essential not only for Manchester and Leeds but for points further north. The benefits of HS2 begin as soon as Birmingham is connected, when the first leg is in place, because trains will be able to run through to the north-east and journey times will be reduced accordingly. We want HS2 to be in place as soon as humanly possible, and if we can do anything to bring the timetable forward, we will. I note his strong support for the northern hub. I can only echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who said that it was a really strong contender for control period 5. If that gets me into the Manchester Evening News, that is all to the good. I will try to get into the Leicester Mercury as well by saying that the midland main line is a strong candidate for CP5.
	I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) here today. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who is no longer in his place, intervened on him to refer to the Cardiff to Swansea line. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve by electrification, but I point out to him that it is not necessary to change trains at Cardiff to get to Swansea. When electrification to Cardiff takes place, it will be perfectly possible, and indeed desirable, to run trains through in bi-mode operation without the necessity to change, and the speed gains that come from electrification will make it a much quicker and more pleasant journey to Swansea on new rolling stock. He ought to be pleased by that arrangement.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) has done a lot of hard work on behalf of his local airport, and we all recognise that. He asked in particular about the arrangements for public service obligations. I can tell him that it is open to regional stakeholders to apply to the Secretary of State to impose a PSO on an air route should they feel that a case can be made and it satisfies EU regulation 1008/2008. As he knows, the airport pushed for a PSO in 2009. There is an issue with the poor service at the railway station, and I will be happy to speak to him separately about that matter if that would be helpful.
	My final point relates to comments about the Department’s alleged underspend, which was raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee and a couple of other Members. It is an important point. The level of underspend became apparent only towards the end of the year and could not have been predicted earlier. The money was used to increase expenditure in certain areas where results were deliverable in 2010-11 and represented good value for money. It would not have been right to scrabble around for something to spend on at the end of the year that was not good value for money; that would not have been a responsible use of taxpayers’ money. I also point out to the hon. Lady that a very large sum of that related to budget cover for depreciation and therefore was not, in any case, spendable cash in the traditional sense. The underspend arose largely because of the rail subsidy being lower than expected following the successful negotiations that we carried out with the train operators, which produced better than expected passenger numbers and a better deal for the taxpayer than hitherto might have been expected.
	We have had a very good debate. The Government have demonstrated that we are committed to transport and the economy, committed to creating growth and jobs, and committed to cutting carbon emissions. We are getting on with it and doing a pretty good job.
	Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Rio+20 Summit

[Relevant Documents: Eighth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, on Preparations for the Rio+20 Summit, HC 1026, and the Government response, HC 1737.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—
	(1) resources, not exceeding £1,079,958,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,
	(2) resources, not exceeding £172,643,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and (3) a sum, not exceeding £1,106,539,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Joan Walley: I am delighted to have the opportunity to open this debate on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee following our report on the preparations for the Rio+20 summit. I am pleased that so many members of the Committee are in the Chamber. I am grateful that the Minister is in his place and say at the outset that I acknowledge that the Secretary of State is on other urgent business to do with this topic. We welcome the Minister and look forward to his comments.
	All parliamentarians must engage with this issue; those of us on Select Committees are legislators who are there to hold the Government to account. We have already seen, in organisations such as GLOBE International, what a powerful contribution Members of Parliament from different Parliaments around the world can make on these important matters.
	The report is the first by our Committee to be debated on an estimates day. The timing of the debate could not be better. This morning, along with other MPs, I was privileged to be able to attend the launch of the report, “Resilient People, Resilient Planet”, which comes from the high-level panel on global sustainability set up by the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and which was presented to us by Janos Pasztor. In their report, he and the panel members make a truly powerful case for global change, and that is what we have to address in the run-up to the Rio+20 summit. This debate also comes after the publication of the zero draft of the United Nations outcome document for the summit.
	We began the Select Committee inquiry early, starting last spring, so that we had time to examine what the Government are doing to make Rio+20 a success and so that we could play a part in getting attention for the summit, including the pre-summit events, the actual negotiations and, crucially, the follow-up work that will be needed. If action was needed at the first Rio Earth summit, 20 years on we need solutions more than ever. Governments and politicians the world over need to get their act sorted. Equally, we have to take this to every community around the UK and to the people we live next to and work with. People in countries, towns and cities the world over need to urge the decision makers to do more.
	Whatever agreements are reached at Rio, the summit is not just about one country or one negotiating bloc; it is about developing and developed countries, the haves and the have-nots, and not just one generation, but future generations. This Rio conference will affect us all today, tomorrow and in the days and years ahead. We therefore have to make it a high-level event, where we change the way in which we do politics. It is a crossroads. From now on, policies should be formulated and budgets made on the basis of what is right for the long term. We should give notice that we will change course because we believe that following a more sustainable path will enhance human well-being, further global justice, strengthen gender equity and preserve the earth’s life-support systems for future generations.
	We all know that it is 150 days to the start of the Olympics. I wonder whether people in Parliament and out there are aware of the countdown to Rio. There is a bit of a paradox here. We have to be cautious and guard against the impression that this summit is the be-all and end-all. We have to remind ourselves that no instant wins or quick fixes are likely to arise form it. Rather, we need a change of direction. Rio+20 must be seen as a starting-off point for new initiatives, rather than a signing-off point to end a process.
	The Select Committee report calls on the Prime Minister to attend the summit to show the UK’s commitment. His office informed us that he would not be able to do so because of a clash of dates with the diamond jubilee celebrations. That seems to have prompted the United Nations and Brazil to move the summit to later in June to allow not just the Prime Minister, but other Heads of Government to attend. The response to the report states that decisions about who will attend Rio, apart from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will be decided on later, as will the decision on the need for a special envoy. Right from the word go, the Government have to be careful not to be on the back foot. This matter has to be clarified.
	I have no quarrel whatever with the Secretary of State going out there. It is vital that she attends. I know that she is very committed and that she has been involved in all the preliminary stages. However, I believe that for the full backing of the team, the Prime Minister needs to be there, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, the scientists and the business leaders. The UK team have to make their mark. At a time when the world is changing; when environmental debt needs to be as high up the agenda as economic debt; when we face temperature rise and biodiversity loss unless we learn to live within our planetary boundaries; and when we have one opportunity for the international community to frame the new priorities and to work out how we will each, individually and collectively, engage with this matter, we need the UK Prime Minister to be there, actively shaping the new agenda and understanding what alliances are being forged.

Graham Stuart: Does the hon. Lady agree that as we are a global leader in embedding natural capital in the national accounts, which I hope will be a central feature of the summit in Rio later in the year, the Prime Minister has a strong story to tell? He will be able not only to boast of our work in that area, but to share it and further strengthen our alliance with the Brazilians, who are an emerging and important power.

Joan Walley: I am very grateful for that intervention, especially as it comes from the hon. Gentleman, who plays such a constructive role in the work of GLOBE legislators not just in the UK, but internationally. This debate is about how we can best use our best practice and leadership and be part of the ongoing process.
	It will be no good if we are not seen as one of the main contributors to a new multilateral process. The questions are as difficult as they can be and there are no easy answers, especially if we are not fully committed and on board. It is not in the UK’s interests to be sidelined in any way as the Rio agenda is formulated and then carried on after the summit. This discussion came up at the launch earlier today. This is not a question of the Prime Minister going out there to grandstand; we want him there so that he can understand and be part of the process. When the Minister winds up, I would be grateful if he could tell us what discussions the Secretary of State has had with the Prime Minister about this issue and whether we can expect him to make a commitment to attend.
	I would also be grateful if the Minister could address another of our recommendations and say whether the UK will appoint a special envoy to champion some of this work in the years ahead. It was important that we had a special envoy to deal with forestry issues. I am grateful that the very capable hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who played such a distinguished role in forestry issues, is present. I hope that what happened to him does not happen again if our recommendation for a special envoy on biodiversity for Rio is accepted.
	The objectives for Rio+20, as set out by the United Nations, are
	“to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and address new and emerging challenges.”
	In practical terms, the two main themes of the conference are
	“a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication”
	and
	“the institutional framework for sustainable development”.
	The Select Committee report described the lack of progress on sustainable development since the first Rio summit 20 years ago, which I am sure many Members were involved in taking forward, perhaps in local government. It identified a new impetus for urgent action and for a greater appreciation of our planetary boundaries. The report discussed the merits of new sustainable development goals and recommended that they take forward the millennium development goals, but with the key difference of applying targets to development as well as to developing countries.
	The report emphasised how the green economy agenda needs to protect those who might be disadvantaged by it. We need a fair green economy that respects the social justice pillar of sustainable development. The report highlighted the need for the green economy to take account of the value of ecosystem services and beyond-GDP measures of economic activity, including well-being. It noted the need to involve the private sector in the green economy and recommended mandatory sustainability reporting by companies in their annual reports and accounts.
	The report said that there is scope for the creation of an international court on the environment, which would provide a forum for adjudicating on environmental cases. However, it noted the Government’s line on United Nations institutions—that the focus should be on making the existing systems work before inventing new ones. We thought that that was a reasonable line to take, but stipulated that the UK should not insist on it if it would get in the way of a wider agreement on the substantive issues, such as the green economy.
	The report stressed the importance of engaging with civil society and, more importantly, of finding creative, imaginative and innovative ways of engaging with the public. I know that the Liaison Committee is keen that Parliament should go out to the community. We are looking to hold a special event at St Martin-in-the-Fields on 21 May involving the “Hard Rain” project to express the importance of this agenda not just through the words of politicians, but through art, music and photography.
	The Government’s response to our report is fine as far as it goes, but far more work on the ground is needed. That is why it is so important that we flag up the matter in today’s debate. I welcome the Government response, however, which was positive overall. As we would expect, it accepted the importance of the Rio+20 summit and the need to contribute to making it a success. I welcome the fact that the Government are fully committed to sustainable development, but we always hear a lot of warm words about the importance of mainstreaming sustainable development across all policies, and we would like to hear a little more about how that will actually be done and how the Government intend to raise the profile of Rio+20. I know that since our report was published the Secretary of State has spoken to non-governmental organisations and business groups, including on 9 February at the Guildhall. It would be helpful, though, if the Minister could set out what further action the Government will take to generate and maintain engagement on Rio+20.
	Another relevant issue, that of mobilisation, was raised at a conference chaired by Nick Stern under the sponsorship of the United Nations Foundation. We need to concentrate on solutions and on leading by example, so local initiatives all over the country are important, such as the one at Keele university that I attended just last week for green week on the occasion of the inauguration of Jonathon Porritt as the university’s Chancellor. Such initiatives follow on from the “Hard Rain” project, which was a solutions exhibition showing that we need to think not about nightmare scenarios but about what we can do. We need to work together to create solutions.
	The Government agreed with us that business involvement in the green economy is key. However, their response did not address the important point that we raised about the need for a fair green economy that reflects the social dimension of sustainable development.
	Another detailed aspect of our report was our reference to the proposed international court for the environment. We asked for the Government’s views on the pros and cons of setting up such a court. We appreciated their thorough response describing the lack of international appetite for a court that would bind countries. We understand that, but a more modest proposal doing the rounds was a court that would make only declaratory
	decisions. We would appreciate an update on that from the Minister, including what further developments and discussions there have been.
	In the run-up to Rio, it is important that we place our preparations in the context of UK policy. We must examine the issues that the UK should be interested in, so that we can lead by example. Our constituents should be pushing us to push the Government to get the best deal for the UK. We should never be satisfied. We need a deal that acts as a catalyst for green growth, takes account of fairness, defines what we mean by a green economy and does not use green growth as a euphemism for economic growth. It needs to take account of best practice in other legislatures, such as Wales, where there is legislation on sustainable development.
	We can start now the discussions about a new framework and a new economy that invests for the long term and offers a future for humankind in which we can live within our environmental limits in a fair and just society. All Departments of our Government must lead by example at home, whether on finance, business or international development. They must consider the causes of poverty, not the symptoms, and embed sustainable development in cross-cutting policies to invest for the long term. We must have the resources to show what the UK can do at a time of transition.
	Local Agenda 21 achieved a huge amount at the first Rio summit, and we need to see what equivalent outcomes we can get at this one. I wish to highlight the enormous efforts of many countries, particularly Colombia, whose ambassador is in London today not just garnering support and building consensus on the five main issues—energy, food security, water, sustainable cities and oceans—but doing all he can with other countries, including the UK, to promote the sustainable development goals.
	We do not have time to go into detail about many aspects of what we need, such as on forestry. It is really important that we have a time-bound commitment to far more areas of forestry, managed by indigenous people and local communities. I hope that when today’s debate is over, Ministers will have a greater understanding of the fact that they need to keep Parliament up to date with all the initiatives that are under way, including proposals, actions, the changing positions of different countries and what can be done to address possible hurdles. The Environmental Audit Committee wants to be part of that process and actively engage in the progress that the Government make.
	I also ask the Minister whether we can have regular updates on the work being done in our bloc, the European Union, in the run-up to Rio+20. How do the Government intend to take forward any commitments reached at Rio, and how will Parliament, the place that should be at the centre of the debate, be involved in debating and agreeing follow-up measures in the years ahead? Will the model be that national and regional economies follow essential components, using environmental taxes and regulations effectively to promote low-carbon industry? Can we have greater transparency in reporting, so that economic decisions reflect the value of ecosystem services and impinging planetary boundaries? In that way we could measure development progress not by gross domestic product alone but by measures that capture well-being and the health of environmental capital.
	A further issue to consider is the pivotal role of business and the private sector, and the need for companies to be transparent about the sustainability of their operations, including their resource efficiency. They also need to disclose the source of the raw materials that they use, the waste that they generate and the efficiency with which they use and reuse resources.
	Many people are doing what they can to show leadership and demand action, and it is vital that the UK Government engage with parliamentarians and legislators, civil society, business and people the world over on these most pressing issues. I welcome this evening’s debate.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. Please resume your seats. Ten Members want to speak. If everybody takes 10 minutes, plus the usual injury time for interventions, everybody will get in. We may have to tweak that a bit later in the debate.

Mark Spencer: I shall do my best to be as brief as possible, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow colleagues time.
	I first wish to put on record my appreciation of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who has not only secured the debate but done extensive work with the Environmental Audit Committee. She has had an extensive career working on environmental issues, and I appreciate her efforts over a number of years.
	The Government have a fine line to walk. Clearly the United Kingdom wants to be seen to be leading the world on environmental issues, and we have a moral responsibility to go to Rio and negotiate the best deal that we can for the globe. At the same time, however, we have to ensure that the rest of the world comes with us. That will be crucial as we move forward. We need to be seen to be leading the demand for improvements to protect the world in which we live, but we cannot be seen to be charging over the hill and leaving everybody else behind. We have to take people with us.
	It is also worth putting on record that we have nothing to fear from a green agenda. In fact, just the opposite—the UK has everything to gain from moving towards a green economy. We have seen that in our own constituencies. My constituents have embraced solar power in their desire to put panels on their roof and partake of free energy from the sun. It is crucial to recognise that we are pushing at an open door, because our constituents are keen to get on board as long as they can see the benefits to themselves. It is important not only that we achieve things but that we take the general public with us. They are very keen, and for the next generation—my children’s generation—having a little dial in the kitchen telling them what energy they are generating from solar panels and what energy they are consuming will be very powerful. The Government need to push such ideas.
	That leads me to science and technology, which will be crucial. Science has a great deal to offer in solving some of the problems that we face on Earth, and the Government should embrace science and technology
	and try to find more methods of doing things more efficiently. We must ensure that new technology is brought forward.
	One technology that is particularly relevant to the Sherwood constituency is carbon capture. Sherwood is a former Nottinghamshire coalfield and coal is a crucial part of my constituency, but we all recognise the global warming problems that coal causes. If we can find a solution to catching carbon from those polluting power stations, there is an opportunity to make use of the Earth’s natural resources without releasing carbon. As we open new technologies such as shale gas, as long as we do not release carbon into the atmosphere, we have a wider window for improving technologies to make them more renewable and, as it were, less traditional. That could be a great benefit not only to this country, but to the world.
	At the same time, we need to recognise our nation’s energy security position and how crucial it is for us to find new sources of energy so that we are not dependent on other nations to produce energy for us. We have a great thirst for energy and power, and it is important for us to find new sources of renewable energy. Solar is a good example, but another one that I should like to flag up is anaerobic digestion, which has a great future. My constituents recognise the benefits of anaerobic digestion. Anybody who is offered the choice of an energy recovery plant, an incinerator or an anaerobic digester within their community will always go for an anaerobic digester, because it does not involve a chimney pot. Anaerobic digestion has a great deal to offer the nation, and with that method we can produce energy using biogas—I want the Government to push that.
	Another issue that I want to highlight—I hope the Government take it seriously—is water. Western nations drag water around the world and pull it from water-stressed places. We are all keen to eat asparagus and strawberries in December, but as consumers, we sometimes do not give a thought to the impact that that might have globally. That links to other Departments, and I hope the Minister recognises how important it is that the whole of the Government climb on board with the Rio agenda. I am thinking of projects funded by the Department for International Development. UK taxpayers’ money could be used, for example, for a project such as building a power station in a third world country, which is an honourable project. However, it is important that that power station does not burn carbon fuels, or if it does, that it has carbon capture and storage. It is also important that UK taxpayers’ money is not used to devise water systems—for hydroelectricity or irrigation—if that will impact on a community downstream and leave it without a clean water source and unable to live a normal life. UK consumers need to be mindful of the impact we have on the global ecosystem.
	I mentioned taking the world with us and keeping pace, and another issue that needs highlighting in that respect is carbon leakage. The last thing we want is for the UK Government to take firm action over energy-intensive industries only for those industries to relocate to another part of the world and for us to import its products. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North is keen to see the success of the ceramics industry in the UK. It would be a tragedy if, for example, the steel, cement and ceramics industries left for other parts of the world and continued to burn enormous amounts of
	energy in an unenvironmental way, and if we continued to import those products. It is crucial that we move at the right pace on carbon leakage. We support those industries in reducing the amount of energy that they use, but we can do that only in a global context.
	My final point is also on technology. It is almost impossible to separate the issues of food and energy. If we are to solve the problem of feeding the world and keeping it warm at the same time, we must make use of new technologies and scientific innovations. I am keen to see the introduction and use of genetic modification technologies, which are already used extensively in the US, South America and China. There is a danger that the EU will be left behind on GM technology. The Government need to lead independent research—I emphasise independence—into GM technology, so that UK consumers can be confident not only that it is a safe technology, but that it offers rewards.
	Finally—I know I have said “finally” already, but this really is finally—we need to bear in mind that if we are unable to secure the rest of the world and if they do not come with us, we need to look at the practical implications for the UK. That is probably the most controversial thing I have said. If we are unable to drag the rest of the world with us, the impact of global warming on the UK will be catastrophic. If other nations around that table are not supportive, our communities will be at severe risk of flooding and weather conditions. The Government must then consider how we are to mitigate the symptoms of global warming for those communities. There is a balance to strike in that situation. Do we spend taxpayers’ money on trying to reduce our carbon footprint, or do we spend it on mitigating the symptoms of the world’s inability to act to curb carbon release? That will be an enormous challenge not only for the UK, but for the rest of the world.
	I thank the House for its time and look forward to the rest of the debate.

Martin Caton: As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee under the committed leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I shall pick up on some of the issues that she raised and ask how we can help to make the Earth Summit in Brazil in June a meaningful driver of sustainable development. I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), a colleague on the Committee. I am not convinced that I want to look through his shale gas window, but I agree with many of the other points he made.
	Twenty years after the original Rio summit, which adopted the Brundtland commission concept and established the three-pillar approach to sustainable development, which ties social and environment goals together, it is right to look back at how far we have come, or indeed to admit how far we have not come, since ’92. To paraphrase the UN Secretary-General, the trends on the three pillars of sustainable development are at best mixed. There has been significant economic growth overall, but the benefits have not been universally felt. He pointed out that income poverty remains an enormous problem in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia; large disparities between regions remain on other
	millennium development goals, including school enrolment, and maternal and child health; and 1 billion people are still under-nourished. Yet only half the countries with data on their millennium development goals are on track to meet their targets.
	The environmental protection pillar has probably shown the least progress. The Secretary-General said that pressure on ecosystems continued to increase, as did the loss of forests and biodiversity. Sadly, the world has failed to respond to the dangers that it recognised 20 years ago, which is enormously disappointing, because in that time the scientific evidence on the consequences of failing to tackle climate change has become stronger. We have also learned a lot more about what is happening to ecosystems, biodiversity, the nitrogen cycle and the other processes that the Stockholm Resilience Centre identifies as the planetary boundaries within which humanity can operate safely.
	Our Committee took evidence from a range of organisations, and the picture painted of progress was pretty well uniformly gloomy. The International Institute for Environment and Development said that
	“we are currently losing the battle for sustainable development”;
	Oxfam stated that progress since 1992 has been “weak”; and the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development identified
	“signs of erosion in the overall global political commitment to sustainable development”.
	Why then has the world failed to respond anything like as robustly as it should to the threats the planet faces? There is probably a multitude of answers, but the underlying one is that most people in the world have not been convinced of the severity and urgency of the challenge, and even if they have, they are far from sure that action at any level will be effective. A “business as usual”, or a “business more or less as usual”, scenario therefore wins by default. We need to use the run-up to Rio as an opportunity to combat that inertia and make the case for action, so that the summit can enable a renewal and more concerted response to the threats, but also the opportunities, that we face.
	One option that has arisen out of discussions in the run-up to Rio has been the establishment of new international goals. Colombia submitted a proposal for the introduction of UN sustainable development goals. That seems to have been reasonably well received, albeit with two not unreasonable caveats: first, there is no time before June to draw up and agree a detailed set of such goals, and secondly, the new goals must complement, not undermine, the existing millennium development goals. Indeed, the Committee considered the establishment of sustainable development and consumption goals at Rio—even if at first in broad-brush terms—as a way of shifting effort contributions from the developing to the developed world.
	The two main themes for Rio, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, are to build a green economy in the context of sustainable development, and poverty eradication. The UN Secretary-General envisages that involving a multi-track approach encompassing taxation, public procurement, public investment in sustainable infrastructure, public sector support for research and development, and reconciling
	social goals with economic policies. In my view, taxation has a vital role to play in incentivising more sustainable behaviour. It helps to make environmentally damaging activity less economically attractive and encourages environmental goods. One problem in this country, however, is that the Government do not have a definition of an environmental tax. They have abandoned the previous Government’s definition, which reflected the international norm—basically, if a tax has an environmentally beneficial effect, it is an environmental tax—and the Treasury is now considering a new definition. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the UK delegation will have a new definition to take to Rio to inform its negotiating position in this policy area.
	The green economy debate also focuses on the valuation of ecosystems services, the role of regulation, the need to measure sustainable economic performance by a yardstick that goes beyond gross domestic product so that human well-being becomes central, and the need to ensure that the green economy is a fair economy—fair across the planet, and within regions and countries. There is every prospect of those themes being adopted at Rio as essential requirements of a green economy, and I hope that the Government will press the case.
	The EAC report on carbon budgets called for the introduction of mandatory emissions reporting by business to help to tackle climate change. Various organisations and bodies have called for Rio+20 to agree a mandatory regime for sustainability reporting, and we agree with them. That sort of transparency will help the private sector to move more quickly to play its part in creating that green economy.
	The other main theme for Rio is the institutional framework for sustainable development. The UK is not in as strong a position on governance issues as it was a few years ago. The Government have badly weakened the capacity for the objective assessment of their own environmental performance, with the abolition of the royal commission on environmental pollution, the withdrawal of funding from the Sustainable Development Commission and the removal of the watchdog role of Natural England and the Environment Agency. On the other hand, the UK devolved Administrations have a role in promoting sustainable development. I represent a Welsh constituency and believe that the Welsh Assembly Government have a valuable contribution to make on the governance question. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House how the Government intend to facilitate input from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales before and during Rio. Furthermore, the Select Committee heard evidence in support of an international court for the environment. Although it must be recognised that that would not be universally welcomed, the idea has real merit and should be pursued.
	A real danger in the run-up to Rio is that ambitions will be diminished by the global economic crisis, that we will return to the old, sterile, economy versus environment agenda, and that in practice Governments will choose to define a green economy as “full steam ahead but with a bit of environmental window dressing”. That will not do. Across the globe, it is clear that environmental protection and enhancement are too often being forced into second place by the economic imperative.
	The message from our own Government and the lead party in the coalition is mixed. Good things have been done and said. I broadly welcome the green investment
	bank, the natural environment White Paper, the establishment of the natural capital committee and the national ecosystem assessment. I thought the Secretary of State’s speech on this very subject to environmental non-governmental organisations and industry representatives in the Guildhall on 9 February, despite a few gaps in detail, took us in exactly the right direction—the direction we need to head in if anything meaningful is to come out of Rio.
	On the other hand, a rather different message is coming from parts of the Government—that environmental protection is a barrier to economic growth. We see all environmental regulations being reviewed as potential red tape, the EU habitats directive described as gold-plated by the Chancellor without any supporting evidence, the mishandling of the solar feed-in tariff issue, and strong resistance to the use of wind energy by large numbers of Government Back Benchers, resulting in the industry reconsidering major investment in renewables in the UK.
	Let us be clear that uncertainty about any country’s absolute commitment to the strongest possible outcomes at Rio will help to make such beneficial outcomes less likely. One way to overcome such uncertainty is for the Prime Minister to commit himself to attending the summit with the determination to secure substantial progress in the international commitment to sustainable development.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to follow the previous speakers.
	The Earth Summit in 1992 was a timely and significant international event that brought together 172 countries, more than 100 of which were represented by their leaders. It led to the creation of the UN conventions on biological diversity, the framework convention on climate change, the principles on sustainable forestry and Local Agenda 21, all of which were designed to tackle the unsustainable use of natural resources and reduce man’s impact on the environment. Twenty years later, however, as leaders are about to meet again in Rio, we have to be honest about where we are. The state of the environment has worsened significantly, with many of the natural resources on which we all depend under ever-increasing strain in many areas, including oceans and forests, biodiversity and rising greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, we can all point to significant advances in parts of the world—for example, the significant decrease in deforestation in Brazil—and to political processes such as the recent outcome of the Durban climate negotiations, but all the scientific indicators are flashing red.
	The question is why? It is not that we committed to the wrong policies at Rio 20 years ago and in Johannesburg 10 years later; it is that Governments have failed properly to implement their commitments. If we are to ensure that Rio+20 warrants the participation of leaders again, we need to recognise that three key parts of the Rio jigsaw were missing, so that that implementation was always likely to be difficult. First, there was a lack of domestic legislation to underpin the Rio principles and conventions; secondly, there was a lack of credible and independent international scrutiny outside the governmental processes to monitor and scrutinise governmental delivery; and thirdly, the international community failed to convert
	the Rio agenda into a language that would hold sway in the most powerful Ministries in each Government—namely, the Treasuries and Finance Ministries.
	Perversely, we still focus on GDP as the indicator of national wealth, when clearly it is only a partial measure that does not take into account the stock of natural capital on which we all depend and all economies rely. One reason for the failure to look after and steward natural capital is the absence of effective recognition within the national accounts of what capital there is. A country can grow while becoming poorer as it destroys the natural capital on which its future prosperity depends. If Rio+20 is to be a success, we must address these three challenges. That is why I am so pleased that we have this opportunity to discuss Rio+20.
	We should not leave it to Governments, who have not done a particularly strong job. As previous speakers, not least the Chairman of the Select Committee, have said, we need to step up as legislators. We need to ensure that in Chambers such as this across the world, we hold our Governments to account and ensure that they deliver on the promises they make in high-falutin’ speeches at high-falutin’ summits. As the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the formal announcement of the Rio+20 world summit of legislators:
	“Parliamentarians have a profound influence. You enact legislation. You approve budgets. You are at the heart of democratic governance. And in today’s increasingly interconnected world, you are also a link between the global and local—bringing local concerns into the global arena, and translating global standards into national action.”
	I am not sure that we have been good at translating global standards into national action. The international presidency of GLOBE International rests with the UK parliamentary group, and the right honourable John Gummer, now Lord Deben, is serving as the president of GLOBE. As the president of GLOBE in the House of Commons, I am delighted to say that the Government of Brazil and the United Nations Secretary-General have both recognised that a new process is required at the Rio+20 to remedy the underlying weaknesses that I have mentioned. That process will be overseen by the global legislators’ organisation, GLOBE. With the support of the United Nations Secretary-General and the Government of Brazil, as well as the visionary mayor of Rio, Eduardo Paes, the world summit of legislators will be launched. The summit will involve more than 300 Speakers of Parliaments, Presidents of Congresses and Senates, and senior legislators. It will mark the beginning of a new international process for legislators that is dedicated to establishing a mechanism that scrutinises and monitors Governments on the delivery of the original Rio agenda and the conventions on climate, desertification and biodiversity, as well as any further commitments made at Rio+20.
	The summit will have three core objectives. The first is scrutiny. Recognising the role of legislators in monitoring and scrutinising the work of Governments, the summit will establish a mechanism at the international level to monitor the implementation by Governments of commitments made at Rio+20. The summit will develop a set of Rio scrutiny principles to strengthen legislators’ capacity to hold Governments to account. The second objective is legislation. Recognising the role of legislators in developing and passing laws, the summit will provide a platform to advance and share best legislative practice,
	as well as to promote a mechanism in international processes that can recognise national legislation. The third objective is on natural capital. Recognising the role of many countries’ Parliaments in approving budgets and national accounts, the summit will examine how the value of natural capital can be integrated in our national economic frameworks, to enable legislators better to monitor the use of natural capital.
	Based on those objectives, the summit participants will negotiate a Rio+20 legislators’ protocol. They will be asked to make a commitment to take it back to their respective legislatures to seek support for, or formal ratification of, the protocol. Legislators will then be asked to reconvene in Rio every two years to monitor progress in implementing the Rio+20 outcomes, as well as to share best legislative practice. It is therefore with great pleasure that, on behalf of the President of the Brazilian Senate, I formally invite Mr Speaker to lead a delegation from this House to attend the summit of legislators. I shall be pleased to present the President’s invitation after the debate.
	The world summit of legislators would not have been possible without the commitment of legislators from the Senate and Congress of Brazil. With the support of the President of the Brazilian Congress, Senator José Sarney, and the relentless efforts of the President of GLOBE Brazil and First Secretary of the Brazilian Senate, Senator Cicero Lucena, that process would not be taking place. Likewise, it is with the support of the mayor of Rio, Eduardo Paes, that the summit will have a home in Rio.
	In concluding, let me say that the UK has an extremely important role to play at Rio+20. The UK has made a series of significant commitments to incorporate the value of natural capital into its accounts—a radical step, and one that shows that the Prime Minister is delivering on his promise to lead the greenest Government ever. In fact, that step alone has the potential to be one of the most radical changes to the way in which we operate our economy. I am delighted that it is under this Chancellor that the UK natural capital committee build on this experience, which provides concrete and practical actions that can be taken at national level. That radical yet sensible agenda can be presented by our Prime Minister at Rio in person, I hope. I urge him to attend personally, following the G20 in Mexico, and I believe that the international process would benefit from his contribution. I also urge his personal support for President Dilma in that undertaking, as Brazil and the UK have the potential to be much closer allies.
	I urge the Government to support the world summit of legislators and ensure that it is appropriately acknowledged and recognized in the leaders’ communiqué at Rio+20. I know that the Secretary of State has been asked to meet GLOBE to discuss the issue. If parliamentarians are properly engaged, we can deliver on our nation’s promises, give weight to the needs of future generations, not just our own, and deliver sustainable development not as a soundbite, but in reality.

Ian Paisley Jnr: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) in this important debate. Right at the
	outset, let me put on record my congratulations to the British Government on ensuring that issues that are important to this nation, including our agriculture, are on the agenda and will be addressed to ensure that good, sustainable husbandry and agricultural processes are pursued.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) that the Prime Minister should attend the summit. That would give it the necessary panache and provide the necessary proof that the issue is at the top of the Government’s agenda. I hope that Ministers can find a way to do that within their busy schedule. We know it is difficult to find time in what is an especially busy schedule this year for our nation, with the jubilee celebrations and of course the Olympics, but this is one of those make-or-break points, where world leaders can say either that they are on the side of some measures that will be very positive in helping to eradicate world poverty, or that they are not. That is not to diminish the role that will be played by our Secretary of State, who has done an excellent job of ensuring that British interests and the interests that the House is expressing this evening are on the agenda, but sometimes leaders have to step up to the mark too, and I hope that that happens.
	I would like the Minister to take the opportunity this evening to outline the objectives and goals of our nation’s Government for the outcome of the process, because it is outcomes that are measurable. The Government have to set their own outcomes, not just for the summit generally but specifically for our country. What are we going to do? What are this Government going to do and, as the last speaker asked, what is this Parliament going to do to achieve those outcomes? We also have to ensure that our needs as a nation are not disadvantaged. The hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) made it clear that the way to ensure that those outcomes are on agenda and are achievable is by having good communication with all regions of the UK in advance of the summit. I would welcome the Minister coming to talk to our devolved Assembly and those of Scotland and Wales, to ensure that we have a united national front for the whole nation.
	Europe was previously not a good example of sustainable food production. It has obviously changed in recent years—we no longer have the vast butter mountains or wine lakes that once marked Europe. Since the decoupling, the dynamic has changed somewhat, potentially for the better, in helping to demonstrate how we can get sustainable food production and how we can set a good example. The UK and the European Community now look to security of food supply in driving forward the agri-agenda. We could introduce that agenda and that dynamic to the summit to demonstrate that changing our approach to livestock can change the flow of agriculture and production levels. Our own livestock numbers, especially suckler cows, have reduced in recent years, thus rebalancing the green economy to a degree. That ought to allow the UK to encourage the various nations of Africa to ensure that food production on their own small agri-holdings is sustainable and that they learn from our own sustainable practices.
	It has already been pointed out that 1 billion people around the world are going hungry tonight—largely because of inefficient food production, because, frankly, we live in a world of plenty. We should set a goal to
	change that, and I hope that that will be done in Rio. I also hope that the big polluters of the world’s vast resources are made to pay. We need to see a change in how the “polluter pays” principle is driven by Governments. I welcome the moves to prioritise global water governance and to protect downstream users of water. That will be important for sustainable village life in many of the countries that would be regarded as third world, and I hope that we will be able to ensure that underground water resources will be protected for the future. The fact is that those who were the poorest 20 years ago are still the poorest now, and that 20% of the population consume 80% of the world’s resources. Furthermore, 20% of the world’s poorest people do not have a decent standard of living. I hope that that we will see change for the better in Rio.

Martin Horwood: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and all the other speakers of all parties with whom I agree on many issues. Speaking as a Liberal Democrat, as a former member of the Environmental Audit Committee and, indeed, as a former GLOBE delegate to the Cancun climate change summit, I feel as though I am speaking among friends here on many of these issues. I commend the Environmental Audit Committee for its report, for its mission to raise the profile of Rio+20 and for its role in securing this debate today.
	Twenty years ago, I was involved in raising the profile of the original Earth summit. I then worked for Oxfam, and we were sending out tens of thousands of mailings to Oxfam supporters, trying to get them to lobby their MPs. I remember that a young campaigner called Caroline Lucas was working there at the same time. Whatever happened to her, Mr Deputy Speaker? Even then, we were trying to link the issues of global poverty, global justice and global sustainability, and trying to persuade people that they were absolutely inseparable. In the intervening 20 years, it has become even clearer that that is the case. The risk of climate change, and the risk that it poses to the global economy, as well as to people’s lives and livelihoods, is now even better understood. The risk of climate change accelerating beyond 2 above pre-industrial levels is also much clearer, not only from the United Nations framework convention on climate change reports but from domestic reports such as the Stern report, which catalogued in excruciating detail the risks of flooding, famine and disruption, and the challenge that they would pose to global economics as well as to people’s lives.
	Even then, we predicted that the first people to suffer the most from climate change and environmental disaster would be the poor. Sadly, that has proved to be the case. With hindsight, it was probably true even then, as environments in the horn of Africa and the Sahel were beginning to change on a permanent basis. The risks to the poor in countries such as Bangladesh are even clearer now. This is also true in the UK, and even more so now. In 2007, my constituency was extremely badly flooded, and it was the uninsured and the underinsured—those on low incomes—who often suffered the most. We know that that kind of extreme weather event, even in relatively wealthy countries such as ours, will be much more frequent thanks to climate change. It is even clearer that we cannot separate climate change and environmental sustainability from issues of poverty and
	social justice. Only by taking concerted action across rich and poor nations, forested and deforested nations, and those nations that are the most and least vulnerable to climate change, can we tackle this global challenge. We are, as someone said a few years ago, all in this together.
	Alongside carbon emissions and natural resource use, Rio+20 must tackle the issues of poverty, food, energy access and water. I do not entirely agree with the support expressed by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) for GM technology. There are other ways to tackle food production, including introducing more efficient food production, as the hon. Member for North Antrim said. Less wasted food in the richer countries would be a significant contribution, as would the fairer distribution of land and better education and training for poor farmers in many parts of the world. All those things can work together to make the whole planet more efficient at producing and distributing food.
	Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Gower (Martin Caton) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), have highlighted the many failures in development and environmental protection over the past 20 years. In the graphic phrase of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, many of the scientific indicators are still flashing red. And yet, many things that have happened during those 20 years have given cause for hope. Many people thought even 20 years ago that the UNFCCC process might run into the ground and expire very quickly, but despite some close calls, especially in Copenhagen, it is still on track. It is still a UN-led process incorporating more or less all the countries of the globe, and that in itself is an encouraging development.
	Several hon. Members have said that monitoring and verification are a crucial part of the process, and we have seen significant progress in that regard. There is a significant prospect of reconciliation between China and the United States on those issues, which offers the prospect of whatever follows the Kyoto protocol being a more robust and verifiable process. We have also seen the setting of high-level millennium development goals, and the acceptance by many nations that those goals can provide a driver for international and domestic action, even though we know that many of them might be missed.
	In this country, the use of domestic legislation has been important, as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said. The Climate Change Act 2008 set the 80% target, and this Government have produced the natural environment White Paper, which is a truly radical document. If the policy of valuing natural capital that it advocates were put into practice and were to make a difference to the detail of Government policy, we would be taking a massive step forward. We have also heard the promise to establish the world’s first green investment bank, and seen the prospect of the green deal making a radical difference to energy efficiency.
	There have also been many other smaller, less high-profile initiatives, such as the local sustainable transport fund proposed by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and his promotion of alternatives to travel. He has done many of those things on a small scale, to make sustainable development approaches work across different Departments. However, we need to embed that right across Government to make sure that it functions right across Government.
	I commend my hon. Friend, too, for securing an abstention in the recent European vote on biofuels, which I think was a positive step. We have seen progress at the European level as well. The establishment of the European Commission’s emissions trading scheme may be flawed and limited, but it was a first step towards international action on limiting emissions, which has been copied worldwide.
	A great deal of action has been taken by what we are supposed to call non-state actors nowadays—or people, as we used to call them. In business and, significantly, non-governmental organisations, in politics and for the Environmental Audit Committee and the media, this is an issue that has become high profile, leading to a great deal of action at the local and individual level as well as the governmental level.
	What are the key messages for Rio? First, it is right for us to support the high-level goals. I strongly urge that they should include goals on resource use as well as on development and carbon emissions.
	In opposition the Liberal Democrats produced a document called “Our Natural Heritage”. It highlighted the risk of things such as nickel, tin, tungsten, zinc, bauxite and oil becoming rarer in some cases and perhaps even running out in the next 50 years; or, if they did not run out, becoming much more expensive and more environmentally damaging to extract. The economic risks as well as the environmental risks were pinpointed, and we suggested introducing an Anti-Waste and Resource Efficiency Act to parallel the Climate Change Act 2008, to monitor and set objectives for sustainable resource use and reduce the associated risks. I still commend our publication to Ministers. One policy we got through from this document was the local green space designation to protect green spaces important to local communities. I can see why that was a politically attractive one to pick out, but I think our proposed Resource Efficiency Act would have been even more important. If the Rio high-level goals helped to contribute to promoting governmental goals on resource use and worldwide goals, that would be significant.
	Other issues have been raised for Rio, including crimes against the environment, which I believe is important, as is challenging the primacy of economic growth as an indicator of the quality of success of economies.
	Finally, the political message conveyed by who attends the summit is particularly important. It is welcome that the Secretary of State has committed to attend. I would love to see the Deputy Prime Minister flying the Lib Dem flag there as well, but just for once we should put party advantage aside and strongly urge the Prime Minister to attend Rio+20 if he possibly can. I think that would send out exactly the right message—that, 20 years on, we are turning youthful idealism into real leadership and tangible action at governmental and global level.

Alan Whitehead: The Rio summit of 1992 represented what many people saw as a comprehensive programme of aspiration towards an international understanding of sustainability and a move towards a sustainable world economy. As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) set
	out, a number of important things came out of Rio 1992, which I believe was signed up to in the end by 178 Governments. It was to a large extent informed by the unsurpassed definition of sustainability from Brundtland—that it is development
	“that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
	That is the famous part, but the central definition refers to other things from Brundtland, such as
	“the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and, the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”
	If anything, it is that second element of sustainability that we have let slip by over the 20 years since Rio.
	As hon. Members have mentioned, Rio led among other things to an outpouring of local enthusiasm in the form of Local Agenda 21. I was an enthusiastic Local Agenda 21-er at that time, but we were probably naive about implementation and subsequently about what sustainability actually meant.
	I was recently invited to an interesting seminar on sustainable aviation. There, I wondered whether the concept of sustainability might have been pushed a little to the margins. As far as the approach to Rio+20 is concerned, it is important to get clear what we mean by sustainability and what we mean in respect of the needs and the limitations that go with the sustainability concept. We must then address those matters very seriously in the Rio+20 discussions.
	Things have certainly not happened since the original Rio along the lines that those who participated and lauded what happened there would have expected. Although considerable progress has been made with the millennium goals that were set at the Rio+10 summit in Johannesburg, most of them will not be met by 2015, partly because, as I think we now know, many Governments who say they will do things simply do not do them. Being clear about that at Rio+20 will be an important part of securing a realistic outcome from what it may achieve.
	Rio+20 is likely to proceed on a much more sombre basis than earlier summits of this kind, but as other Members have pointed out, last year’s Durban summit on climate change demonstrated that expectations can sometimes be confounded, and I hope that we can approach this summit in that spirit. The fact that it has been demanded by the developing world rather than by developed nations makes a significant difference. It will look to the themes of Rio, but it will do so in terms of everyone’s development. It will consider the concept of a green economy in the context of sustainable development and the institutional framework that will make it possible, and I believe that it will do so in the light of the whole Brundtland report rather than just the oft-quoted first line. It must concern itself with the carrying capacity of the planet and with its concomitant—the need for global equity in the sharing of the resources that go into sustainable development.
	It might be salutary to compare that starting line with what we thought obtained at Rio 20 years ago. The work of the Stockholm resilience centre at Stockholm university was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton), and was examined in some detail in the Select Committee’s report. The centre asked what the planet could put up with in a number of
	areas before its sustainability threshold was breached. What were the planet’s sustainability boundaries? It considered 10 of them: climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorus cycle, global freshwater use, land system change, the rate of biodiversity loss, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution. That work made it clear that we have not only transgressed three of those boundaries—the rate of biodiversity loss, the nitrogen cycle and, of course, climate change—but have often done so in a startlingly profligate way, and are close to doing so in three other areas: ocean acidification, the phosphorus cycle, and land system change.
	Rio+20, then, is not just about how the planet can carry sustainable development, but about how can we row back and make the planet sustainable again, in terms of the carrying capacity that the Stockholm resilience centre set out so carefully. We should, however, celebrate some of our international successes. For instance, as a result of an international convention, we have returned ozone depletion to a point at which carrying capacity has been restored, and have done so through international negotiation and discussion in a way that was not thought possible a few years ago. That analysis, however, tells us only some of the tale. The reason for our transgression of the boundaries that I have mentioned is, overwhelmingly, the extent to which the developed world has hoarded its access to the planet’s carrying capacity at the expense of all other countries.
	This is about sustainable development, but it is also about a worldwide green economy that is based on fairness and equity. In that context, it is clear that the proposals that Colombia and Guatemala are bringing to Rio+20—there may not be time to organise their sustainable development goals properly, but I think they understand that, and see this as a starting point—do not counter the existing millennium goals. I refer to the adoption of sustainable development goals for all, not just developing nations, relating to combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting sustainable human settlement patterns, biodiversity and forests, oceans, water resources, advancing food security, and energy sustainability. All those are sustainability goals for the whole world: they do not simply mean that the developed world is giving back some of what it took from the developing world in the first place.
	I think that the promotion of global resources will inevitably have to be developed in order to promote those goals. I hope that the United Kingdom will support the idea of a global transaction tax—even if it does not support efforts to introduce such a tax at European level—with the proceeds going to the development of these sustainability goals.

Martin Horwood: I strongly support the hon. Gentleman in making that call. The Government may have been right to reject a financial transaction tax at an EU level, which would have meant a real risk of driving businesses to other financial centres. A global financial transaction tax would avoid that risk.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is right. I appreciate his continuing loyalty to his adopted coalition on the issue. I thought someone had to go it alone and advance this idea, but he is right: a global transaction tax that everyone could unite around would be a far preferable
	way of proceeding, particularly if that tax was clearly hypothecated for the purposes of global sustainable development and global equity.
	I agree with what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said about her approach to Rio in her recent speech to NGOs. Rio must be a workshop, not a talking shop. I also agree that being green is integral to sustainable economic growth and that we must put value on our carrying capacity so that it becomes an integral part of our economic transactions, not merely the fuel for them to take place. We must also add the essential ingredient of global equity in respect of resources. I hope the Secretary of State will pledge that the UK will push for that goal at Rio and call for the Colombian agenda of sustainability with global equity to be moved decisively forward.
	That is the shape of the outcome I want at Rio. I do not want to be back here in 20 years talking about Rio+40 and wondering what might have been. By then it will be too late, as the Stockholm environment institute shows.

George Eustice: As this debate has shown, there is considerable scepticism about the prospect of getting much change. The hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) said that in recent evidence sessions there has been a downbeat response about what has happened over the past 20 years. The media coverage of the build-up to Rio has revealed concern about the fact that the summit will last for only three days, rather than the 14 days of the original summit. Many people are saying in insistent tones that this must not just be a talking shop, which points to the horrible possibility that it might end up being precisely that.
	We must ask why we always seem to end up in such a situation when addressing these issues. We feel very optimistic and set great targets, but a few years down the line we find ourselves wringing our hands and asking why nothing has happened. I am a great believer in the UN and I think it is fantastic that we can pull countries together to discuss common challenges, but we must also be honest with ourselves about some of the UN’s limitations. It can bring people together to agree goals and targets, but it cannot take final decisions on policy or implement policies in individual countries.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) talked about the idea of holding a summit of global legislators. I support that, and wish him the best of luck in making it work. There is something more fundamental that we need to try to do alongside that, however: we must lead by example. We must come up with good ideas, implement them and demonstrate that they can work so that they become, as it were, contagious and spread around the world and other Governments adopt them, too.

Mark Spencer: One of the major challenges that we, as a western democracy, face is that some of the things that we are trying to achieve are not very popular. For example, we are addicted to consuming, but we need to reduce our consumption. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that education of the next generation to ensure that they are better than we have been in such regards will be key?

George Eustice: I absolutely agree with that, and I was going to discuss it, because we do not spend anywhere near enough time addressing these issues of our environment and biodiversity, and that is a great shame.
	The green campaign groups have been so incredibly successful at highlighting the problem of climate change that there has almost been an unintended consequence that has been unhelpful to the cause: the creation of a sense of resignation among people that there is nothing that they can do, there is huge impending doom and no person on their own can make a difference. That is a dangerous thing to encourage.
	The over-emphasis on climate change in the environmental debate has been in danger of eclipsing other equally important issues, such as biodiversity. I have encountered green campaigners who say, “Yes, but tackling climate change is the key to improving biodiversity. If we solve climate change, we solve a lot of other things.” That is true up to a point, because climate change is a factor in undermining biodiversity, but we must recognise that a range of other issues, such as sustainable farming and deforestation, get neglected and overlooked.
	The danger of focusing too much on climate change in this debate is that it will not energise the public in a way that other things can. Fundraisers at bodies such as the WWF do not put complicated issues to do with carbon footprints on the front covers of their magazines; they use pictures of baby tigers under threat of extinction, and there is a reason for that. People care about our environment and about issues such as species extinction and biodiversity, so we are missing a trick by not broadening the debate out to engage people more.
	For those reasons, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State and the Government have put the idea of valuing our natural capital front and centre in their approach to this summit, because that is the key message we should get across. There are lots of other conflicting messages, but the one thing we can do is highlight how we can place a value on our natural capital, and some marvellous ideas have been set out in the natural environment White Paper. One example cited has been that pollinators can be worth £400 million a year to our economy. As a former fruit farmer, I can vouch for that, because without the honey bees, the crop cannot be pollinated.
	Emotionally, I have a slight problem with some of these ideas, as I think that we should value the intrinsic things about nature and the natural environment. An element of me thinks, “Isn’t it sad that it all has to be about bean counters trying to add up how much money a sparrow might be worth, rather than just valuing it intrinsically?” That said, when the limits of regulation have been reached and innovative solutions are needed, sophisticated ideas of offsetting and environmental plans to mitigate damage that might be caused in other areas can play an important role. There is huge potential in this area.
	That is why I wish to finish by outlining one idea that tries to combine all these things. How do we demonstrate that individuals can do things, so that people can see that they can make a difference? We heard a fascinating suggestion in a Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs evidence session on the natural environment White Paper. Professor Hill, one of the leading authorities in this area, suggested that we try to
	link some of the ambitions of the White Paper with current proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy, because some of the criticisms of the White Paper’s objectives are that there is not really enough money to make it work on the scale required, yet there is a huge amount of money in pillar 1 of the CAP. We could have discussions about how that might be “greened” and it should not be beyond the wit of man to design a clever system—a market in environmental obligations—whereby some farmers might be able to transfer their environmental obligations to others. That may lead, in some of the more marginal land in less favoured areas, to a critical mass of wildlife and wildlife corridors. We might, thus, create the habitats that will allow wildlife to flourish in much a larger number than we will with a piecemeal approach.
	We have heard some interesting ideas and I welcome the fact that the Government have put this idea of valuing capital at the heart of their proposals. The really important thing is for us to implement something that works. We will then be able to go back to other countries and not just talk about goals, but demonstrate how they can achieve those goals. That is what will be needed to move things forward.

Caroline Lucas: I am very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, and, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I too want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for her commitment to do more and more work on the environment across the whole House.
	I want to focus in particular on recommendations 1 and 9 of the EAC report and the Government’s response to them. Recommendation 1 rightly observes that
	“there has been inadequate progress on sustainable development since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.”
	Sadly, I think that that is something of a grave understatement. Although there has certainly been some progress, it has been very slow and incremental, whereas the science demands an urgent paradigm shift. No wonder our report states:
	“There is still far to travel. Some ‘planetary boundaries’ having been breached, and others approaching, make the task more urgent than ever.”
	I agree very strongly with that. There is enormous urgency behind the agenda as planetary boundaries are indeed being breached. If everybody in the world lived as we do in the rich north, we would need another three planets to provide the resources and absorb the waste. I hardly need to say that we do not have three planets; we have one, and it is already looking pretty degraded.
	Recommendation 9, however, claims:
	“It would be unrealistic to expect the imperative for economic growth not to be high on the agenda of many countries going to Rio+20, developing and developed.”
	My case is that as far as the developed countries are concerned, we need a different imperative high on our agenda. Indeed, the recommendation goes on to state:
	“The Government should resist any moves there might be to use the financial situation to dilute the extent of the environmental and social aspects of the green economy discussed at Rio+20. Rather, it should emphasise…that environmental planetary boundaries will ultimately limit the room for growth.”
	It is important to state in black and white that there are limits to growth. I know that that is not a popular perception or idea, but it is very clear that on a planet of finite resources with a rising population and rising expectations, infinite economic growth simply is not possible.

Martin Horwood: Does the hon. Lady agree with the economist Kenneth Boulding, who said:
	“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist”?

Caroline Lucas: I will forgive the hon. Gentleman for taking one of my best lines, but I think that that is a very important point. I am glad to see that our sources are moving in the same direction.
	The source to which I want to refer is a film, “The Age of Stupid”. I do not know whether many hon. Members will have seen it, but it features Pete Postlethwaite as the sole survivor of a climate catastrophe. It is based in 2050 and he is looking back to today. He looks through all the newsreels—real, genuine newsreels with all the evidence that we have around us that climate change is happening—and he says, in words that still make the hairs on the back of my neck go up in a shiver, “Why is it, knowing what we knew then, we didn’t act when there was still time?” To me, that is just about the most important question that we could ask. Given that we have all this evidence that we must act, what is stopping us?
	Part of it is to do with the fact that for too long, a shift to a green economy has been portrayed as though we were talking about shivering around a candle in a cave. It has been portrayed too often as being about hair shirts and we have assumed that if we scare the life out of people sufficiently with the terrible stories of what will happen—and it will happen if we do not get off the collision course with climate change—that, on its own, will be enough to motivate people to change their behaviour. Yet, as we have seen, the evidence shows that that is not what will motivate behaviour change.
	Such change would be motivated by our painting a much better picture—a much greener, more compelling vision—of what a zero-carbon economy would look like and by our making the point that it is about a better quality of life. We should also make the point that the current economic model is not even working on its own terms, and we need look no further than the financial crash to see that. Not only that—it is not actually making those of us in the rich countries any happier beyond a certain point. There is a lot of evidence that once basic needs are met, beyond a certain point more and more economic growth does not make us happier. The stress on turbo-consumerism is not increasing our well-being. I could not put it better than Professor Tim Jackson, a professor at the university of Surrey who wrote the wonderful report, “Prosperity without growth?” He has said that we
	“spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need to create impressions that won’t last on people we don’t care about.”
	To me, that sums up more or less what we are doing wrong.
	We need real change. We need to recognise that the economy is a subset of the wider ecology and the environment—not the other way around. We need to recognise that, although technology and efficiency have
	their parts to play, they are not going to get us there on their own. In a planet with a rising population and rising expectations, to think that efficiency gains and technology alone will get us off the collision course we are on is to be in fantasy land. We need behaviour change as well and more education on population growth—an issue that no one has put on the table yet this evening. Population is a controversial issue but it has to be part of our discussions about a sustainable future. I am talking not about anything coercive, but about education and the provision of family planning for those women who still need and want it in developing countries. I am talking about recognising that the impact of different populations is different in different places. The impact of our fewer numbers in the north is far greater than that of higher numbers in the south, but population still has to be part of the discussion.
	Social justice also has to be part of the discussion. The aim of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs does not apply only to the rich or those in the global north—it has to apply to every citizen. Under current trends, it looks as though there will be 9 billion people by 2050, and the real challenge we face if we are serious about a green economy is how future populations will be able to consume equally on a per capita basis and still remain within resource constraints. I suggest that that could only be feasible if we in the rich north significantly reduced our consumption patterns and our impact on the planet.
	We have started to make some policies based on recognising the need for constraint, starting with the Climate Change Act 2008. I believe, and the science suggests, that we in the developed countries need to be reducing our emissions by something like 90% by 2030, so I do not agree with the targets in that Act, but the architecture in it is incredibly important. The Government could do much worse than to mark the 20th anniversary of the Rio summit by amending the Act, first, to set targets that are in line with the science and, secondly, to include traded or embedded carbon. For too long it has been too easy to outsource our responsibility for much of the carbon that is produced in order to make the products that we consume. The fact that the production happily happens over in China, with the impact going on to its balance sheet rather than on to ours, seems grossly unfair to me. If we are importing products from other countries, the carbon that is embedded in those products should be part of our calculations and audits.
	There are also biodiversity constraints. Our consumption of resources has a knock-on effect for habitats, so that needs to be strictly regulated to prevent further loss of biodiversity and, where possible, to reverse the losses that have already happened.
	Other hon. Members have talked about our current fixation with economic growth, which means that we over-emphasise the measure of that growth—gross domestic product—to the detriment of other measures of success. Really, our policy on growth is no more or less than a policy to increase GDP by a certain percentage each year, but as others have said, GDP measures do not differentiate the social value of different forms of economic activity or revenue and capital. A Government who use up their capital—the country’s natural resources—and treat it as national income, can boast of having delivered growth and increased GDP. We have seen that on a vast
	scale with the billions of pounds-worth of oil and gas from the North sea that has been treated as revenue with no thought to the fact that that income is a one-off boost to the economy. For 30 years it has made the UK economy look much healthier than it actually has been, and instead of the proceeds being invested wisely in the future—for example, on renewable energy facilities that we can use when the oil and gas run out—it has been used to fund consumer booms that have led to the inevitable busts.
	Perhaps worst of all, the use of GDP as a measure does not count the full costs of production, such as the impact on our natural world and on people’s quality of life. DEFRA’s natural environment White Paper suggests that we can produce metrics of natural environmental value for transactions, but we need to be clear that simply saying that the natural environment has a value is not, in itself, sufficient to ensure that it is internalised in decision-making processes. I would also argue, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) was in some senses, that it is impossible to put a value on some resources. What value do we put on a liveable atmosphere? That is a public good, not a private good. Relying on the markets to offer protection is therefore insufficient. We need regulation as well.
	Businesses need to be hugely involved in the project, and in some respects are far more advanced in their thinking on this agenda than Ministers. We could learn from some of the businesses that are already beginning to think about what it would mean for them to live in a steady state economy, rather than one that was based on more and more production and consumption. As others have said, it is incredibly important that we send a very clear message about the importance of the Rio Earth Summit, and we would do that by ensuring that our own Secretary of State is there, but I join other hon. Members who have said strongly that the Prime Minister also needs to be there to send a strong message that this matters, that this is urgent. The time that we have in this Parliament—the next three or four years—will be critical as to whether we invest properly in getting off the collision course that we are on with the climate crisis. It falls on our generation to do that. It is a huge responsibility, but it is also an awesome opportunity.

Peter Aldous: As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I shall start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for her passion, conviction and resolution in leading that Committee. I shall limit my observations to the opportunities and challenges to be faced in the transition to the green economy.
	The forthcoming summit has two themes—the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for sustainable development. These themes are in many respects the same as those of a conference outside Norwich that I shall be attending and speaking at this Thursday. The New Anglia local enterprise partnership is hosting a conference entitled “Norfolk and Suffolk—
	leading the green economy”. Its objective is to help secure a smooth transition to a green economy, which can bring significant benefits to East Anglia.
	The LEP has been asked by the Government to take a UK lead in demonstrating how business can take advantage of the new markets for environmental goods and services, and to support the strong stance that the UK has taken nationally to reduce carbon and tackle climate change. The Government have given the LEP green economy pathfinder status and it is currently working up with business leaders and academics proposals that demonstrate how the green economy is vital to the UK economic recovery and to sustainable growth. In April the LEP will present to Government its manifesto, which will bring together a wide range of best practice studies, as well as some innovative thinking on how to put low carbon at the heart of business opportunity and success.
	In my view, one role that the Government should be playing on the international stage at Rio is the same one as the New Anglia LEP is performing in this country. Rio provides us with the opportunity to showcase what the UK can do. We were at the forefront of the 19th century industrial revolution. There is now the opportunity for us to play the same role in a 21st century revolution, the transition to the green economy.
	There are three advantages of green growth, the three Es—enhancing the environment, achieving a secure and stable energy supply, and creating new employment opportunities. First, on the environmental front, it is vital that we manage our natural resources in a prudent and responsible manner and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Given the vast offshore renewable resources and extensive maritime engineering expertise in the North sea off the East Anglian coast, the UK can be a prime beneficiary of clean energy projects.
	Secondly, it is important that we have a secure supply of energy, and that we are in control of our own destiny and not reliant on fossil fuel imports. Thirdly, the move to the green economy creates significant employment opportunities. At present clean energy employs 250,000 people in the UK. With conducive Government policies this can grow to 500,000 by 2020. Moreover, retrofitting our houses through the forthcoming green deal provides the opportunity not only to make the country’s housing stock more energy efficient and to drive down utility bills, but to help rejuvenate our dormant manufacturing and construction industries.
	Since May 2010 the Government have done much to promote the green economy. First, they have supported research and development through the proposed technology and innovation centre for renewable energy and the proposed five renewable obligation certificates that support and encourage wave and tidal technology.
	Secondly, they have provided a new streamlined planning process for determining applications for large infrastructure projects, which so far appears to be working well, based on the feedback I have received from Scottish and Southern on its Galloper wind farm application and from East Anglia Offshore Wind on East Anglia ONE.
	Thirdly, there have been important developments in investment in sustainable infrastructure, with regard to rail and the roll-out of superfast broadband across the country by 2015, and in encouraging proposals for
	investment in electricity infrastructure so that the demand for energy can be better managed through a smart grid, smart metering and, in due course, the development of a European super grid.
	Fourthly, working with the private sector is vital if we are successfully to realise the opportunities presented by the green economy. On the East Anglian coast, the enterprise zone due to start in April in my constituency—in Lowestoft and adjoining Great Yarmouth—and the designation of the two ports as centres for offshore renewable engineering will provide businesses with much-needed support and will help to reinvigorate supply chains. Moreover, the green investment bank can act as a catalyst for private sector investment.
	Fifthly, and most importantly, on skills and advancing education, the most important thing we can do is invest in people. It is vital that people have the necessary skills to take up the jobs that will be created in the green economy. The further education and apprenticeship policies that are being enthusiastically promoted by my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning provide an ideal foundation on which to build. We also need to promote the teaching of science, technology, engineering and maths in our schools.
	The Rio summit presents the UK with an opportunity to showcase what we have been doing to promote the green economy. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State should fly down to Rio, hopefully with the Prime Minister on the wing, to boast and to swank about the Government’s achievements. However, in a measured and constructive way she, with the Prime Minister by her side, can promote the green economy and show how a framework for sustainable development can be laid down. I also ask that she supports the UN Secretary-General’s “Sustainable Energy for All by 2030” initiative, which will be launched at the conference.
	On the home front, the Government must finish the work they have started. There might be a temptation to water down the approach to sustainable development by adopting a “slightly green but business as usual” approach. This temptation must be resisted. Over the past 20 months the Government have successfully set out their stall, showing how they intend to move towards a green economy. The private sector has accepted the invitation to work with them to achieve that goal. The Government must not let the private sector down and must continue to work with it to bring to fruition the three objectives: nurturing and looking after the environment in a sustainable and responsible manner; achieving a low-carbon and secure energy supply with less price volatility; and creating new and exciting jobs that can play an important role in leading the economic recovery.

David Mowat: My hon. Friend is using the terms “green economy” and “renewables” as though they were the same as decarbonisation. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) explained, we have to cut our carbon emissions by 80%, or even 90%, by 2050. Currently, about 2.5% of our energy comes from renewables. Does my hon. Friend accept that other forms of low-carbon energy have a major part to play, because he has not mentioned them so far in his remarks? I of course mean nuclear and carbon capture and storage.

Peter Aldous: The Government’s policy is a mixed-energy approach—that is, nuclear, renewables and carbon capture, as my hon. Friend said. I support that policy. I was concentrating my comments on the green economy, but I agree with him.

Mark Lazarowicz: I share in the compliments that many Members on both sides of the House have paid to the Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who has done an excellent job in that role over the past year. I also apologise to her and to the Front Benchers for missing the opening speeches. I am afraid I was delayed elsewhere, so I welcome the opportunity, nevertheless, to make a few points in the debate.
	The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said that prior to his contribution the debate had been pessimistic in terms of the seriousness of the situation that people had portrayed, but I feel that people were being a little optimistic, because there is a danger of striking the wrong balance—between on the one hand not being so pessimistic that people are discouraged from taking action, and on the other not recognising the seriousness of the position that we all face. I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises that seriousness, but, although we must always try to be positive and see a way forward, we should also look at the underlying realities, particularly when discussing what has happened since the conference 20 years ago, when an agenda was set out on how the world might address its many environmental challenges.
	Members have already said that although there has been progress things have, in many ways, gone backwards very badly over the past 20 years. The examples of climate change, deforestation, water shortages, melting ice caps and biodiversity have been mentioned, and in most respects things have become a lot worse, rather than better, over the past 20 years, so it is worth understanding where we are if we are going to think about how we move forward.
	That point needs to be made before, dangerously, we forget the pessimism because we want to be positive. I understand that that is important politically, but we must consider the underlying reality, because we have to work out how we get the world community back on the path to making the fundamental changes and securing the fundamental international agreements that are essential if we are to address the challenges faced by our environment.
	We know that Rio is not going to end with any massive, great, super plans, or with any great international agreements. Since the failure to secure comprehensive and legally binding agreements in Copenhagen, the world community has undoubtedly gone backwards, and Rio is not going to reverse that movement, but what Rio can do—and not just Rio, but the other meetings that take place over the next few months, of which Rio is just a part—is to go for relatively modest objectives and to set out future pathways that, at the same time, put back on the agenda our attempts to secure the wider international agreements that we need.
	Rio can, for example, address the food and agriculture issues to which Members have referred, and encourage the exchange of technologies and ideas on the green
	economy worldwide, an issue on which we in the UK have an opportunity to set an agenda from which other countries can benefit. We can try to ensure that the climate finance funds that were promised at Copenhagen, at Cancun and then at Durban are delivered, and we can look for progress on deforestation. Some progress has been made, but in many areas matters are going backwards not forwards, and we certainly need to push action on deforestation much higher up the international agenda.
	We should not, however, delude ourselves into thinking that such changes and progress are going to be enough. Pathways, road maps and signposts are all important, but at the end of the day we need to secure the type of internationally binding agreements that were sought at Copenhagen on climate change, on tackling deforestation, on food, on agriculture and on land use.
	These kinds of changes are essential. It is not going to happen this year—it may not happen for some years to come—but we must try to get the world to move in the right direction if we want to save the planet from irreversible degradation. Rio can point us in that direction. If we can start to move forward after a few years of delay and backward movement internationally—not because of this Government, who have played a fairly good role in these issues following the work of the previous Government—then at least Rio will have done something. I hope that we can approach the negotiations at Rio and the other international events over the next few months in that spirit.

David Burrowes: I apologise for missing some of this excellent debate, but it was for a good reason. I was meeting representatives of Christian Aid, who are very interested in the debate having been much engaged in this issue; indeed, a briefing was sent to hon. Members. They reminded me that this week the high-level UN Commission on Sustainable Development published a report that set the parameters for April’s G20 meeting of Ministers on sustainable energy. That is a very important meeting that will set the ground for the Rio summit. I invite the Minister to respond positively in seeing Rio as a practical way of following up the meeting to ensure that there is genuine progress.
	As we approach Rio—we all say this in grand terms, but it is true—we have the opportunity to shape the future of not just one generation but several generations, and they are growing generations. We now have 7 billion people on the planet. In 1992, the world population stood at 5.5 billion, so there has been an increase of 1.5 billion in just 19 years—an increase equivalent to the total global population in 1900. That is the amazing level of growth that is taking place. Those 7 billion people are affected by the global economic crisis, in many cases very much so, but also by the environmental crisis facing this generation and future generations. This Government, and other Governments, have an excellent opportunity to make the case that we can tackle these economic and environmental challenges. The dramatically increasing population means that our natural resources cannot cope. There has been an increase of nearly 150% in real-terms commodity prices, and each year 44 million
	people are driven into poverty by rising food prices, with food and water scarcity causing civil unrest and war.
	The Government, together with non-governmental organisations such as Christian Aid, are rightly taking the lead on this, and civil society is very active. More significant, and more sustainable in some ways, is the lead taken by businesses, including British businesses. Unilever wants within 10 years to double its size, halve its carbon footprint for production and source all raw materials sustainably. Rolls-Royce is reducing carbon emissions and saving £26 million per year. I understand from DEFRA that UK businesses could save £23 billion per year by using raw materials, energy and water more efficiently.
	While we undoubtedly see great challenges in the increasing global population, we also see great opportunities in the global market for low-carbon and environmental goods and services, which are worth some £3 trillion and growing at 5% per year. Green issues and economic issues are not divorcees but marrieds, with the foundation of their marriage being natural capital. We need to put the value of nature at the heart of the marriage between the economy and the environment. The Government are right to promote green accounting and the auditing of the nation’s rivers, forests and other landscapes. The ecosystems analysis started under the previous Government and followed up under this Government is one of the best pieces of literature to come out of Government, and it is of wonderful value. It is a useful tool for us domestically and a model that can be adopted by other countries that recognise its value—indeed, its financial value. We all know the cost of ignoring nature, and it is therefore important to put a price on nature. I hope that that will be followed through at the Rio summit.
	We are debating the resources that we want to invest in preparation for the Rio summit. Those resources are important and they must go to the right place. They must lead to action, not just talk. Other hon. Members have spoken about that.
	The proposals for sustainable development goals that came out of Colombia and Guatemala have been commended and adopted. They are an important way forward. They are practical and will lead to action, rather than just to more talk about targets and goals. They mirror the millennium development goals. That approach is important, because it means that at Rio there is the prospect not just of fine-sounding statements and communiqués and green-sounding rhetoric, which we saw a lot of in 1992 as well as the international agreements, but of action. The sustainable development goals align properly with practical realities and priorities at national level and will drive things forward.
	We must also put out some warning signals. In 2000, seven millennium development goals came out of the process and suddenly people said, “What about the environment as a goal?” They then went back into the conference and came up with an eighth development goal. We need to ensure that we align the sustainable development goals with the millennium development goals. They need to coalesce. More than that, the sustainable development goals that come out of Rio should act as a catalyst to ensure that the millennium development goals are achieved. We do not want a parallel universe with different development goals. They need to work together properly.
	To put it in a straightforward way, we need to improve the situation for the poorest communities across the globe. We must banish the need for young people to go miles and miles to forage for firewood in forests. We must ensure that there is sustainable energy so that young people do not need to do that, but can instead go into education and help to meet the millennium development goals.
	I welcome the Government’s approach of bringing in business, which has been mentioned by hon. Members. As I have said, businesses are taking the lead. The Secretary of State has invited businesses to put forward their ideas. The businesses that are doing things such as sustainable accounting and that are taking the lead in this country should also be invited to take the lead in Rio and to make the case. If we make the case, together with business, for a green and sustainable economy, we can be optimistic that Rio will lead to action for the benefit of the world’s children, and indeed their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Zac Goldsmith: I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), not only for initiating this important debate, but for chairing the Environmental Audit Committee so expertly and brilliantly for the two years since the election. She has done extraordinary things with the Committee.
	Every single environmental indicator that matters is heading in the wrong direction. It does not matter which area one looks at. A number of Members have spoken about what is happening to our forests, so I will not dwell on that but simply say that since 2000, just 12 years ago, the equivalent of the land space of Germany has been lost. That should not have been so difficult to say. [ Laughter. ] I should not be laughing, because it is a staggering and appallingly depressing statistic. We have also learned that 80% of the world’s fish stocks have either collapsed or are on the brink of collapse. That is 15 of the world’s 17 major fisheries. We know that most if not all of the world’s bread baskets are shrinking rapidly. The Gobi desert is growing by roughly 10,000 sq km every year—I could go on and on.
	All that results from a growth model that effectively involves cashing in the planet and the natural world for short-term consumer goods. What is that actually achieving? In the 20 years since 1992, the year of the first Rio summit, we have seen a 162% rise in world GDP, but apart from the devastation that that has caused to the natural world around us, what has it actually delivered for the world?
	According to the UN, 1 billion people live in urban squalor and more than 1 billion are described as living in conditions in which they are chronically undernourished —that is a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation figure. Between a quarter and a third of the world’s population live in a state of persistent deprivation. Just last week, KPMG produced a brilliant report—I wish I could remember the title—predicting among other things that food prices will rise by up to 90% by 2030. For most people in this country that would not necessarily be a disaster, because if we spend 5% to 10% of our budget on food, even a 100% increase would still allow some wiggle room; but for somebody living in a country where people spend 60% of their income on food, such an increase would be absolutely devastating.
	I will not dwell on climate change, other than to say that even if it is not happening, those other trends are real. They are mathematical observations, and there is no doubting them. If even the most conservative predictions about climate change are accurate, those problems will be massively compounded. One has to wonder what is the purpose of an economy that is so utterly divorced from basic reality that it is still growing even as it is eroding the very basis of life. We know that change is going to happen. The current trends clearly cannot continue for ever—primary level mathematics tells us that they have to end at some point, and it is unlikely to be a happy ending. Change is going to happen either through our choice or because it is forced upon us.
	I accept that if we were to ask people to list their top priorities and concerns nowadays, the environment would not feature at the top for many or even most of them. Someone at the bottom of the pecking order in this country worries about food, shelter and what school to send their children to—concerns that, unfortunately, are affecting more and more people in this country as a result of the economic conditions in which we find ourselves. However, that does not take away from the fact that, logically, the environment is still the biggest priority of all. Environmental concerns are neither a luxury nor a frivolity.
	I believe that we are going to have a debate on Greece tomorrow, and the Chamber will be packed. I will be here myself, and I certainly do not want to imply that what is happening in Greece is not a disaster on a significant scale, but it does not compare to the problems that we face in our relationship with the natural world. Future generations, perhaps our own children, will live with an enormous cloud of incredible uncertainty hovering over them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) listed a number of concerns—I believe he was citing research by Christian Aid. I will not repeat them, but I will say that they are not abstract concerns for people around the world. We would do well to take note of that.
	In questions to Foreign Office Ministers today, a number of Members discussed Somalia. They talked about action on pirates, what we are going to do to police the borders and how we are going to prevent the problems from recurring. What is too often left out is the unavoidable correlation between the emergence of pirates and the exhaustion of the oceans around the coast of Somalia—the hoovering up of the very last fish, unfortunately by European trawlers. Fishing communities lost their access to fish and their livelihoods and took to an activity that, unfortunately, is so much more financially attractive that we are unlikely to get them out of it without the use of police. That is one illustration of what happens when we undermine basic ecological systems and destroy ecosystems. The world’s poorest are the first in line to suffer, because they are the most likely to depend on the free services provided by nature.
	What are we to do? Resource scarcity will define the world from now on. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of basic mathematical fact and there is no avoiding it. Businesses will have to design out of their business model waste, pollution and the use of scarce resources. We will have to rearrange our economy and break the link between economic growth and environmental
	devastation. We will have to learn to live within our means. Like others, I hope that Rio will, among other things, provide an opportunity for real solutions to be showcased.
	No country in the world is doing all the things that are necessary to drive us towards a sustainable future, but there are shining examples in most countries. Japan, for example, has an enormous amount to teach us about waste. It is much closer to achieving zero-waste status than we are. Costa Rica has done extraordinary things with marine protected areas to boost the viability of its fishing communities, and it is succeeding. Denmark has done extraordinary things with its decentralised energy infrastructure. The list goes on.
	I shall not dwell on the natural capital work that the Government in this country have done, other than to say that it is pioneering. That work puts us in front with, strangely enough, South Korea which has done a lot of work on valuing natural capital. I hope that we can take that work to Rio and showcase it as an area in which Britain is taking the lead.
	The Government are not just valuing natural capital. They have been bullish in trying to ensure that within the Rio agenda there is proper discussion of the need to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The International Energy Agency figure for how much we spent subsidising the consumption of fossil fuels last year is $409 billion. Clearly, the world cannot become less dependent on fossil fuels without our tackling those subsidies.
	Finally—this relates to the Minister’s work—I hope we can ensure that marine issues feature heavily in the discussions at Rio. I believe we are responsible, through our overseas territories, for around 10% of the world’s oceans. There is an amazing opportunity for us to create a network, as I know we are already doing, of marine protected areas and vast nature reserves that will benefit not only biodiversity, but coastal fishing communities, who are running out of fish and things to catch. That will probably entail taking on vested interests and some of the industrial mega-trawlers, but those types of organisation and operations are not compatible with a sustainable future.
	Not only are countries showing us what can be done, but companies are also doing so. Companies in the most polluting sectors, such as construction, are showing what can be done. Uponor, based in London, has become a zero-waste company. Construction is responsible for about a third of this country’s waste, so if that company has managed to become a zero-waste company, the hope must be that other companies will do the same. We must take the best practice today and roll it into the norm tomorrow. We do that only by looking at what others are achieving.
	Big energy companies—I cannot bear to name them—have shown that they can buy tens of times more solution per £1 by saving energy than by making energy. I will name E.ON, which spent £250 million as part of its energy company obligation and saved the equivalent of 2.3 Kingsnorth power plants. What would it have cost the company to build 2.3 Kingsnorths—20, 30, 40 or even 50 times more? That is the rate of return for investing in energy efficiency—I can see the shadow Minister doing the maths, so I have probably got it wrong, but we cannot argue that energy efficiency does not pay.

Fiona O'Donnell: May I reassure the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) that I was more concerned that he may be a tenant of Dolphin square, where E.ON is the only provider of energy?
	I congratulate the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), on her excellent contribution and on her Committee’s work scrutinising the Government’s environmental policy. She is an environmental giant, and I have been pleased to sit in her shadow. Absolutely in character, she took an understanding approach to the absence of the Secretary of State. I shall follow her example, but I want to put it on record that I find it deeply disappointing that the Secretary of State is not present. Will the Minister indicate when she will be in the House so that she can engage in debate? I understand the importance of engaging with business, NGOs and the public, and that her speech in London’s Guildhall is an important part of that. A Government Member quoted Ban Ki-moon on the role of politicians in this debate, so it is only fair to ask that the Secretary of State, as the lead person on Rio+20, comes to the House at some point to give us a chance to debate the issues with her.
	I welcome the Committee’s report on the preparations for the Rio+20 summit in June, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the report and the many questions raised by Members on both sides in their informed and passionate contributions. The tone of the debate has been very positive, although many Members have spoken about the dire challenges that we face. I congratulate the Government Whips for keeping their climate change deniers off their Benches.
	Rio+20 is the biggest global gathering on sustainable development since the original summit in 1992. It is crucial that it delivers outcomes and sets down some serious policy milestones for 2015 and beyond. The previous Labour Government were the first on the planet to enshrine climate change targets in law. Given the UK’s global leadership on environmental issues, we want to work with the Secretary of State and the Government on a cross-party basis to give that same leadership at Rio+20.
	I have to tell the Minister that part of that support involves talking about the Government’s record at home. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said that this is a test for all nations, so let us look at the Government’s record. They have a poor record on protecting our forests and woodlands. More than half a million people signed a national petition against the plan to sell off the public forestry estate last year, forcing the Minister and Secretary of State to perform an embarrassing U-turn. However, the sell-off has merely been put on hold until the report from the independent panel is published in May. The panel is due to report before Rio. Will the Minister guarantee that while the Secretary of State is waxing lyrical on the international stage about reforestation, she will not return to a fire sale of our forest assets back home?
	The previous Labour Government committed the UK to establishing an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones by 2012. The Government’s decision to delay their implementation is a bitter blow
	for the 1 million stakeholders who took part in the consultation process. How can the Government provide leadership on the global stage on marine conservation when they have failed to meet their own deadline for designating marine conservation zones? The EU is in the process of radically reforming the common fisheries policy to provide a sustainable and profitable future for UK fishermen. That reform might pose serious challenges for the UK fleet on issues such as maximum sustainable yields, discards and capacity.
	I was hugely impressed by the contribution from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, although his reputation preceded him, when he spoke about the need to protect developing countries. What proposals will the Minister bring to the table to ensure that the EU fleet will not resort to unsustainable fishing off the coast of developing countries to offset the conservation of stocks closer to home? What about marine protection in overseas territories, which the hon. Gentleman also spoke about? Some 90% of our marine biodiversity is in overseas territories. Labour designated the Chagos islands as a marine reserve. What plans does the Minister have to protect biodiversity in these areas?
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) spoke about the record of some companies in reducing their carbon footprint, but again I want to turn to the Government’s record at home. Earlier this month, the Secretary of State said that she would join the call for Rio to drive uptake of sustainable businesses practices
	“in particular transparent and coherent sustainability reporting”.—[Official Report, 9 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 44WS.]
	Carbon reporting is a vital connection in driving up standards in green jobs and growth, yet when it comes to carbon reporting at home, the Government are dragging their feet. Will the Minister guarantee that his Government keep their promise and make it mandatory for UK companies to report their carbon emissions before Rio? The deadline in the Climate Change Act 2008 is April 2012. Will the Department meet that deadline—yes or no?
	One of the Government’s first acts was to abolish the Sustainable Development Commission, their own green watchdog. This Government have invented their very own approach to sustainable development at home, and that is before we even mention the influence of the Chancellor on this debate. He sees the environment as a barrier to growth and thinks that the green agenda is bad for business and jobs. In his autumn statement, he said that burdening British business with environmental goals would mean that
	“businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 807.]
	Yet the reality is that this could not be further from the truth. The UK is falling behind because of this Government’s policies and their lack of environmental ambition. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke about the growth in green jobs, but since this Government came to power, the UK has slipped from third in the world for investment in green growth to 13th, behind such countries as Brazil and India. In 2009, investment in alternative energy and clean technology reached £7 billion. That fell by more than 70% the year this Government were elected. The latest figures for last year seem to suggest that if there was any pick-up, it was very modest. Investment levels are still considerably below what they were in 2009.
	It is quite an achievement that in less than two years the Government have alienated businesses over green investment, along with the National Trust, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and The Daily Telegraph, because of their plans to rip up the planning rules that have protected our environment for 60 years. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office wants to do to the planning system what the Chancellor has done to environmental regulations, tearing up best practice and replacing it with a 50-page document. When asked by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the Cabinet Office’s intentions, the Secretary of State replied:
	“I am not in a position to confirm or deny”
	the story, adding:
	“I was not at such a meeting.”
	That is exactly the problem with this Secretary of State: she is always outside the room when the big boys are making the decisions.
	I want to try to strike a positive note, so let me move on to what Labour sees as the key priorities and opportunities at Rio. Our leadership at home is key to our credibility on the global stage, and if Government Members do not get that, we have a problem. When it comes to food poverty at home, we see rising food prices and families forced to rely on charities and food banks. Last year the Trussell Trust, one of the largest food charities, opened a food bank every week. The amazing charity FareShare, which I visited yesterday, works with other charities to feed 35,000 people a day in the UK. Rio rightly places food security and ensuring a sustainable, healthy and safe food supply for the world’s population at the top of its agenda. The hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) both have a history with Oxfam. As Oxfam has highlighted in its Grow campaign, we need to tackle the structural causes of food crises, addressing the effects of speculation on food prices, the impact of biofuels and land grabs. The answer is not producing more food alone, but producing more food with less impact. We need to mitigate the impact of climate change and invest in agricultural practices and sustainable livelihoods in developing countries.
	As the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Richmond Park both said, resource scarcity is the biggest challenge facing the planet. With the population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, Rio is an opportunity to reach a global agreement on how we can ensure access to water, food and energy for all, alongside the long-term challenges of climate change and eco-system management. The interconnected nature of resource scarcity means that political leadership is vital. On this side of the House, we are taking a joined-up approach, working across shadow Departments to reflect the broad range of issues that will be discussed in June. Will the Minister tell us when he last met with his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for International Development, and what discussions they had about their priorities for Rio?
	As many Members have said, GDP alone is a limited measure of growth and does not take into account the other pillars of sustainable development—the social and environmental costs. Labour agrees that one of the key priorities for Rio should be to develop sustainable development goals and set down serious policy milestones
	for 2015 and beyond. The Committee recommends that the Government should engage with European countries to ensure that the EU pushes strongly for sustainable development goals ahead of Rio+20. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) spoke of the need for countries to work together. With just over four months until the conference, will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with other EU member states, and what progress has been made?
	The Secretary of State claims that she is ambitious. However, on forests, marine conservation zones, carbon reporting, sustainable development and food poverty, the ambition of this Government has not been matched at home. We need an ambitious Government who will lead the world on sustainable development. The Secretary of State said that Rio+20 had to be
	“a workshop, not a talking shop”.
	If the Government are to have any credibility, it will not be enough for them to talk the talk; they will have to walk the walk, too.

Richard Benyon: I should like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for securing this timely debate, and by welcoming the contributions from both sides of the House. These discussions, and the strong parliamentary interest in them, are an important part of informing our approach to the negotiations. The hon. Lady led the debate with real knowledge and power. With the exception of the final speech, there has been fantastic cross-party support today. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) really read the mood of the House wrongly tonight, and she should reflect on that.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, articulated a concept that is considered irrelevant and old fashioned in some quarters, but it is one that I believe to be totally relevant to the debate on Rio and on sustainability. It is the concept of stewardship. When we talk about the stewardship of our planet, we are talking about the future for our children and grandchildren—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) made particularly well. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) also made that point. This is the time to get this right. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) raised the prospect of Rio+40, and said that it would be a tragedy if we did not put in place the measures that we hope will come from this conference, and did not hold politicians of this generation to their commitments.
	Our understanding of the need to green our economy and promote sustainable development has improved dramatically over the past 20 years. It is no longer something that we should do, but something that we need to do for future prosperity. It has been pointed out tonight that more than 1 billion people are living in poverty, that two thirds of the world’s ecosystems are in decline and that climate change will cost up to a quarter of global gross domestic product.
	We are well aware of what is at stake here. This has been well articulated by the hon. Members for Gower (Martin Caton) and for Brighton, Pavilion and by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), for Sherwood and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), among many others. The key point is that the UK must and will take a leading role to secure a successful outcome in Rio.
	Since our response to the Committee’s report, we have—as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said—received the zero draft that will act as the basis of negotiations until June. We also have recommendations from the Secretary-General’s high-level panel on global sustainability, which was launched in London this week. With just four months to go, momentum is building and we are getting a clearer idea of what countries, NGOs and businesses are calling for. I should therefore like to make clear the UK priorities for Rio, which will go some way to addressing concerns raised here today, although I will of course pick up any further points.
	I want to see Governments stand up at Rio and make a clear statement—a political declaration—that sustainable development is the only way forward. We need to make it absolutely clear that long-term, sustainable, climate-resilient growth is possible only if we use natural resources sustainably and tackle poverty. In the UK, we have shown our commitment to green growth through a raft of policies and initiatives, including our publication “Enabling the Transition to a Green Economy”, which provides businesses with the certainty and clarity to innovate, invest and grow in a green way.

Fiona O'Donnell: rose—

Richard Benyon: I want to make a bit of progress, if the hon. Lady will allow me.
	We have established the green investment bank with £3 billion-worth of funding. Together with the green deal, it will accelerate green investment by businesses and households. We have introduced a carbon floor price that will come into force from April next year. We have published the natural environment White Paper—the Government’s vision of how to protect and improve the natural environment over the next 50 years—with 92 recommendations for action.
	Yesterday morning I stood at the top of the Wiltshire downs with a really enthusiastic group of farmers and people from the local community as we launched one of the nature improvement areas—a really exciting prospect. At Rio, we must ensure that the commitment to green growth is secured at the international level—it needs tangible outcomes—which will help all countries move to a sustainable growth path.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot come to this House singing the praises of his Department and then not expect us to hold it accountable for its record at home. Will he give a commitment now to mandatory reporting of carbon emissions?

Richard Benyon: I will come on to that. I said a little earlier that the hon. Lady had misread the mood of the House—and she still seems to be doing so. I will answer her points later.
	A key part of Rio will be an agreement on the sustainable development goals—a priority for the UK, on which we are working closely with our EU and international partners. There is a lot to do on fleshing out SDGs, but we want to lead the way in helping to develop this thinking. The Secretary of State met a group of Ministers in Nairobi last week and the Colombian Environment Minister here today. We need a renewed focus on tackling the major sustainability issues of access to food, sustainable energy and water.
	We need to focus on global challenges. Agriculture, water and energy are fundamental to our economy, and provide livelihoods for the world’s poorest people. By 2030, the world will need at least 50% more food, 45% more energy and 30% more water. These are massive issues. We have tried to do our bit in government by reflecting the concerns that we know future generations will face—for example in our water White Paper published just before Christmas, which set out how we will approach the resilience of our economy and natural environment to provide the water we need in the future.
	We need a clear course of action on food security and sustainable agriculture, which is climate smart, reduces waste and takes into account water resources. We need to be clear that access to clean and safe water is a prerequisite for green growth. Just last week, we were discussing drought here in the UK—a country famous for its rainfall. In China, which has 20% of the world’s population but only 6% of its water resources, half of which are undrinkable, access to water resources will only become more important. The UN Secretary-General's “Sustainable Energy for All” initiative is an important step towards increasing sustainable energy, energy efficiency and the use of renewables.
	We want to see outcomes that will put sustainability at the heart of decision making. This includes a commitment to go beyond gross domestic product so as to account for natural and social values, too. Many hon. Members touched on this issue. It is vital that we articulate it not just in the high-level conversations—or high-falutin ones, as one hon. Member put it—but at the local level. Several hon. Members stressed that we have to carry people with us in these arguments. I was particularly impressed with how my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood brought the argument down to the household level, as it is crucial to impact on households now and in the future.
	The UK has a lot to share at Rio: through our national ecosystems assessment, through the Prime Minister’s work on well-being and through work stemming from our natural environment White Paper, we can begin to put natural value at the heart of decision making. A number of Members referred to the Government’s agenda in that regard. I was particularly taken by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. We are trying to value natural capital in the context of our economic well-being, of which it is a vital element, and we will shortly announce the membership of the natural capital committee. However, it is impossible to value a view: there must still be an element of the spiritual and uplifting benefits of nature that we all experience, and it is important that we articulate that.
	The natural capital committee will advise the Government on our natural capital, and our work with the Office for National Statistics will embed it in our environmental accounts by 2020. Our guidance entitled “Accounting for Environmental Impacts” will help Departments to reflect the value of nature in decision-making. Our ecosystems market taskforce—led by Ian Cheshire, chief executive of the Kingfisher group—will look at opportunities for businesses in new green goods and services, which form a vital part of our work in the future. Our work with the World Bank on its “Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services” will pilot new approaches to wealth accounting in developing countries.
	As has been said during today’s debate, we also need greater resource efficiency and a commitment to reducing inefficient and environmentally harmful subsidies, including fossil fuel subsidies. In the UK alone, resource efficiency could provide £23 billion-worth of savings, or £2.9 trillion globally per annum, and the EU is well placed to lead on that through its “Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe”.
	As the Government have noted, action by Governments alone will not be enough. Rio needs to engage the private sector actively so that it plays its part in delivering a greener economy through trade, innovation and investment. However, a Government can facilitate the transition by, for instance, reducing environmentally harmful subsidies. A number of Members mentioned fishing. Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) that the Government’s agenda on fisheries partnership agreements is right up there in terms of reform of the common fisheries policy. It is entirely wrong that, having failed to put our own house in order, we are now inflicting bad management on some of the people in this world who can least afford it, and I assure my hon. Friend that dealing with that is an absolute priority for me.
	We will be able to assist by incentivising research and development and innovation, by increasing resource efficiency, to which we have referred in the context of the water White Paper, by getting price signals right—I have mentioned the carbon floor in that connection—by valuing and accounting for natural resources, by making the best use of standards and voluntary approaches such as labelling and procurement, and by developing indicators of green growth. We have been engaging businesses in relation to possible outcomes from Rio, for example through the Green Economy Council.

Caroline Lucas: rose—

Richard Benyon: I am sorry; I cannot give way.
	We know that UK businesses are world leaders in green growth. Marks and Spencer saved more than £70 million last year through a combination of efficiency savings and new business. That compares with £50 million the year before.

Joan Walley: rose—

Richard Benyon: I have only a minute left, but I must give way to the hon. Lady.

Joan Walley: I hoped that, before our time ran out, the Minister would tell us whether the Prime Minister would be going to the summit, and when we could expect an announcement about that.

Richard Benyon: A very strong message has been conveyed by this debate. The hon. Lady knows that I cannot give an absolute commitment one way or the other. As was made clear to her Committee, the Prime Minister thinks that this is an absolute priority. The Secretary of State will be going, and whether or not the Prime Minister can go will be announced in the near future.
	As I was saying and as was said earlier, businesses are leading the way, and to an extent Government must follow. We know that the Brazilians are planning to bring non-governmental organisations and the private sector together before the ministerial segment, and I hope that a range of UK businesses and NGOs will help to shape the negotiations that follow. We have also encouraged the Brazilians to hold a trade fair to showcase the opportunities that the transition to a green economy can offer. It is important to note that politicians will not just be talking to each other: there will be engagement with business, the voluntary sector, NGOs and, of course, Governments.
	These are our high-level priorities for Rio. The areas where we think we can make a real difference include the sustainable development goals, agriculture and energy, valuing natural capital and corporate sustainability. Rio is above all a negotiation, and we will be working hard with the EU Commissioner and member states to ensure that Europe has a strong voice. We will also need to work with our international—
	Debate interrupted, and Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
	The Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54).

Estimates, Vote on Account, 2012-13
	 — 
	Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—
	(1) resources, not exceeding £2,705,167,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,
	(2) resources, not exceeding £390,871,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a sum, not exceeding £2,660,065,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Supplementary Estimates, 2011-12
	 — 
	Home Office

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Home Office—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £66,029,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1755,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £4,421,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £173,266,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Vote on Account, 2012-13
	 — 
	Department for Transport

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—
	(1) resources, not exceeding £3,413,771,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,
	(2) resources, not exceeding £3,478,411,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a sum, not exceeding £5,850,719,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—
	(1) resources, not exceeding £1,079,958,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,
	(2) resources, not exceeding £172,643,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a sum, not exceeding £1,106,539,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.
	The Speaker then put the Questions on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No. 55).

Estimates, 2011-12 (Navy) Vote A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2012, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces set out in Supplementary Votes A 2011-12, HC 1745, be authorised for the purposes of Part 1 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.—(Mr Dunne.)

Estimates, 2011-12 (Army) Vote A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2012, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Land Forces set out in Supplementary Votes A 2011-12, HC 1745, be authorised for the purposes of Part 1 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. —(Mr Dunne .)

Estimates, 2012-13 (Navy) Vote A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2013, a number not exceeding 39,350 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2012-13, HC 1735. —(Mr Dunne. )

Estimates, 2012-13 (army) vote a

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2013, a number not exceeding 121,540 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2012-13, HC 1735.—(Mr Dunne. )

estimates, 2012-13 (air) vote a

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2013, a number not exceeding 42,210 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Air Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2012-13, HC 1735.—(Mr Dunne. )

estimates, excesses, 2010-11

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2011—
	(1) a sum, not exceeding £347,072,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for defence and civil services as set out in Statement of Excesses 2010-11, HC 1757. —(Mr Dunne. )

supplementary estimates, 2011-12

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £16,430,760,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1748, HC 1755, HC 1772 and HC 1783.
	(2) resources authorised for capital purposes be reduced by £4,397,816,000, as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £7,170,139,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament. —(Mr Dunne. )

estimates, vote on account, 2012-13

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013—
	(1) resources, not exceeding £205,575,869,000 be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756, HC 1784, HC 1785, HC 1804, HC 1840 and HC 1848.
	(2) resources, not exceeding £16,331,213,000 be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a sum, not exceeding £195,629,897,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament. —(Mr Dunne. )
	Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Estimates, Excesses, 2010-11, Supplementary Estimates, 2011-12, and Estimates, 2012-13 (Vote on Account).
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Mr David Gauke, Miss Chloe Smith and Mr Mark Hoban bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
	Mr Mark Hoban accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2012 and 31 March 2013; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for those years and for the year ending with 31 March 2011; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2011 and 31 March 2012.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 310).

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)) ,

Constitutional Law

That the draft Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 10 January, be approved.—(M ichael Fabricant .)
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

EU Financial Instruments for the Period 2014-20

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16301/11, relating to a Commission Communication: A framework for the next generation of innovative financial instruments-the EU equity and debt platforms; notes that the Commission’s proposals increase resources available to the EU; agrees that the maximum acceptable expenditure increase through the next Financial Perspective is a real-terms freeze in payments; and supports the view that Innovative Financial Instruments in the next Financial Perspective, 2014–2020, should only be used to deliver a smaller EU Budget and not to supplement existing funding.—(Mr. Hoban.)
	Question agreed to.

SUPERMARKETS AND PUBLIC LAND (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Dunne.)

Mr Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) to speak, I should note that he has written to me to ask that I waive the sub judice rule in respect of a statutory appeal to the Court of Session against the decision of a planning reporter, to which a number of companies, Scottish Ministers and South Lanarkshire council are parties. This is to enable him to raise the matter of a particular planning issue in his constituency in this Adjournment debate. Given the technical nature of the proceedings, which are before judges only, and the fact that no date for a hearing has yet been set, I have agreed to waive the rule so far as is necessary for this debate to take place. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to exercise this freedom with discretion.

Michael McCann: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Competition among supermarkets in our country is at times a cut-throat business. A desire for dominance and market share has meant that in different parts of the UK competing supermarket chains are knocking seven bells out of each other to secure new stores. That is all perfectly legitimate if no laws are being broken. However, if we add to the mix the ingredient of public land, we change the dynamic completely. Tactics felt to be legitimate in private sector supermarket wars cannot necessarily be used when the deal, or part of the deal, involves our public assets. My Adjournment debate is about a veritable supermarket car crash in my constituency involving public land, where it would appear that perspective and common sense were replaced by avarice and intransigence. The net result is a situation where an agency of Government charged with creating economic wealth became so detached and consumed by a flawed land sale that it prevented jobs from being created in my constituency.
	In this debate I seek to draw attention to the unacceptable behaviour of Dawn Developments and Scottish Enterprise in a land deal in the heart of my constituency, the unacceptable behaviour of a senior Scottish Enterprise executive and the failures of the civil service to investigate my evidenced complaints. I have advised the Minister of the contents of my speech, and, as you mentioned, Mr Speaker, I have sought and taken advice from the Table Office and your office on what I intend to say to ensure that I remain inside the rules of parliamentary privilege.
	Let me deal first with the nature of the deal constructed between Dawn Developments and Scottish Enterprise. The story begins in 2004. Scottish Enterprise—or, more precisely, the public—owns land in an industrial estate in East Kilbride in my constituency. The site was marketed and five bids were received, ranging in value from £2.5 million to £15 million. A bid from Dawn Developments was accepted which, to reach the agreed price, would have required the local authority to re-zone the land from industrial to retail use and grant permission for a supermarket development. The Dawn Developments bid was £15 million and it, in turn, expected to sell the land to Asda for a minimum of £22 million, with a cool £7 million profit.
	Scottish Enterprise and Dawn Developments had no discussions with South Lanarkshire council on the viability of that proposal, nor did they submit a request for the site to be re-zoned for retail use through the established local plan process. Missives were concluded on 25 October 2007. Around that same time Alan MacDonald, the chairman of the Dawn Group, met South Lanarkshire council officials and was told that the site was not suitable for a supermarket development. Undeterred, Dawn Developments submitted a planning application in October 2008 for the creation of a class 1 retail food superstore. The application was processed and South Lanarkshire council’s planning department produced a recommendation that the application be refused, and those documents are a matter of public record.
	With the prospect of a refusal in the offing, Dawn Developments decided to withdraw its application before the planning meeting took place. That presented Scottish Enterprise with an opportunity to withdraw from the deal, as the conditions stipulated that parties were released from their obligations once the planning process concluded. Despite this natural break, Scottish Enterprise inexplicably entered into a new deal with Dawn Developments on precisely the same terms.
	In mid-2009, South Lanarkshire council received a planning application for a supermarket on a different site from a different consortium. A short time later, Dawn Developments resubmitted a planning application for the Scottish Enterprise site. The new application was identical to the application that had been processed and recommended for refusal. That marked the start of the supermarket war. The council approved the new, rival application and Dawn Developments withdrew its planning application from the local authority on the grounds of non-determination and then sent it to the Scottish Government.
	The application was independently assessed by a Scottish Government reporter and again rejected. Simultaneously, Dawn Developments also legally challenged the rival supermarket proposals that had been cleared, accusing the local authority of behaving improperly. Scottish Enterprise, by dint of its relationship with Dawn Developments, was party to that legal move. The case was taken to the Court of Session in Scotland and lost.
	These tactics would be immaterial to the public interest if they involved two private companies slugging it out for the right to build a supermarket in my constituency, but that is not the case when one side is partnered with Scotland’s economic development agency. Myriad questions arise. If this was such a good deal, why was the application not promoted by Scottish Enterprise to maximise the return for the taxpayer? Why did Scottish Enterprise not carry out an independent assessment of whether the site was suitable for a supermarket? Did Dawn Developments inform Scottish Enterprise that in private discussions with South Lanarkshire council it was told that the site was not suitable for a supermarket development? Why did Scottish Enterprise re-sign a deal that had already been through the planning process and recommended for rejection? Did Scottish Enterprise agree to a strategy which saw its partner, Dawn Developments, challenge the integrity of the well-respected local council and take the Scottish Government to court? All those questions remain unanswered.
	The chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, Lena Wilson, appears to be oblivious to the fact that the organisation she commands is a partner in a deal that has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds, has prevented a legitimate application that could create hundreds of jobs in my constituency from proceeding and, going back to the original deal, has secured no capital receipt for the taxpayer.
	Let me now move to the actions of Scottish Enterprise executive Mr Stephen Gallagher. On 31 March 2010 Stephen Gallagher, the managing director of Scottish Enterprise Commercial, wrote to the chief executive of South Lanarkshire council, Archie Strang, offering a share of the capital receipt for the West Mains road site if planning permission for the supermarket was granted. In plain language, Stephen Gallagher offered South Lanarkshire council money to pass a planning application.
	On 14 April 2010, Archie Strang wrote to Lena Wilson, Scottish Enterprise’s chief executive, making it clear that Stephen Gallagher’s actions could be perceived as an attempt to influence the outcome of a planning application. On 16 April 2010, Archie Strang received a response to his letter from Jim McFarlane, Scottish Enterprise managing director of operations, which stated:
	“Can I first of all apologise unreservedly that this letter has been received by your Council at this present time. This simply should not have happened.”
	It further transpired that Stephen Gallagher had also written to the council’s planning department on two separate occasions, objecting to the rival supermarket application and asking the council to favour the Dawn Developments-Scottish Enterprise deal. That led to Archie Strang writing again on 19 April 2010 to Lena Wilson, chief executive, about the letters the council had received from Stephen Gallagher dated 6 and 8 April, both of which objected to the rival supermarket bid.
	Archie Strang said in his letter:
	“My main purpose in writing to you...is to express concern at the apparent attempts by Scottish Enterprise to influence the Council to resist this application, and to support SE’s own proposal, with Dawn Developments, at West Mains Road. This concernarises from the comments made in the letter, dated 6 April, where the Council is effectively threatened with a legal challenge if it is not seen to have ‘properly addressed’ all issues associated with the Redwood Drive submission. This is wholly inappropriate as it appears to cast doubt on the Council’s ability to deal with planning applications in an impartial manner and questions the professionalism and integrity of planning officers.”
	In a response dated 23 April 2010, Jim McFarlane stated:
	“Until your letter of 19 April was received, I was not aware that further letters of 6 April and 8 April had been submitted to your Council. In my view these letters were ill advised and should not have been sent.”
	I take the view that at best Stephen Gallagher’s behaviour should have been viewed as gross misconduct. I further take the view that the thread running through Mr Gallagher’s behaviour was consistent with a reckless attempt to allow the Dawn application to proceed, whatever the cost, but what beggars belief is that Mr Gallagher was not subjected to any disciplinary procedure by Scottish Enterprise and was allowed to leave the organisation with a taxpayer-funded severance package.
	Once again Scottish Enterprise chief executive, Lena Wilson, has refused to answer any questions on the matter. For example, was Stephen Gallagher acting
	independently when he issued the official Scottish Enterprise letters dated 31 March, 6 April and 8 April? Did Scottish Enterprise’s management believe that Stephen Gallagher behaved in an acceptable fashion by offering cash to a local authority in return for a planning consent? If not, why was he not disciplined? What discussions took place between Stephen Gallagher and Dawn Developments on these matters? What internal investigations took place in Scottish Enterprise to determine Stephen Gallagher’s motivation for writing these letters? Why was Stephen Gallagher allowed to leave Scottish Enterprise with a substantial package funded by taxpayers?
	That brings me to the final issue I want to address—the abject failure of the civil service to investigate my evidenced complaints. Having hit a communications brick wall at Scottish Enterprise I sought answers from what I concluded was the United Kingdom civil service chain of command. I first wrote to Sir Peter Housden, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, who, sadly, is fast building a reputation as the Scottish National party’s cheerleader in Scotland. I asked him to investigate these matters, but he refused to do so. He accepted Scottish Enterprise’s position without, it appears, carrying out even a perfunctory examination of the facts. Undeterred, I then wrote to his boss, Sir Gus O’Donnell. I assumed that the head of the civil service would not resile from his obligations to ensure that the service’s staff behave according to its code, which states that it must be accountable to the public and should meet the highest possible standards in all it does. Sadly, he did not. Instead, he merely wrote to the Scottish Government and replied to me reaffirming their original assessment of the matter. So, we have a procedure in which each complaint I have made has been rejected not on the basis of an investigation but because each part of the civil service hierarchy involved has reaffirmed their subordinate’s position. That simply is not good enough.
	What does all this mean for my constituents? We know that the development opportunities that were available in 2004 when the land was first marketed no longer exist. The world has moved on. We also know that the decision of Scottish Enterprise to enter a joint venture in pursuit of a larger capital receipt was a blunder, and the resulting loss of perspective has dragged it into a totally inappropriate legal battle that has challenged the integrity of one of Scotland’s leading local authorities.
	Mr Speaker, I sought your advice on the next matter that I wanted to raise and you agreed that the sub judice rule could be waived. I will heed your advice to be careful. I am grateful for your decision because it allows me to advise the House that Dawn Developments continues to take legal action against the Scottish Government’s decision to refuse planning permission at the publicly owned site. The madness continues but there is a train of thought that, given the collapse of every legal action thus far, the action is merely a device to put off the fateful day when Scottish Enterprise will be fully exposed on all these matters and held to account. The reputation of Scottish Enterprise has been tarnished by the actions of its partner Dawn Developments and it should apologise unreservedly for its lack of judgment on this matter and the damage it has done in my constituency, where the employment opportunities that would have been created for the many people who find themselves unemployed have not been created. I have not worked out whether
	what has happened is a result of conspiracy, incompetence or a combination of both, because the questions I have asked have not been answered. However, I do know that Stephen Gallagher’s behaviour was, without doubt, wholly unacceptable, and that Scottish Enterprise did nothing about it. The question I ask is, why?
	In conclusion, I put the following points to the Minister. We all have a mutual interest in ensuring that each component part of the UK is economically successful, and I ask the Minister to enter into a dialogue with Scottish Ministers to ensure that steps are taken to allow a proper investigation to take place, to ensure that those responsible are held to account and to ensure that lessons are learned. Most importantly, an exit strategy should be devised for this whole sorry mess. Will the Minister also agree to engage with his ministerial colleagues in the Cabinet Office to examine new methods of working to ensure that an elected Member’s legitimate complaints are properly investigated and not simply paper-shuffled from one part of the civil service to another?

David Mundell: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), my neighbouring MP in south Lanarkshire, on securing debating time tonight. Adjournment debates are an important opportunity for Members to put matters of concern on the record, and the hon. Gentleman has been able to do that this evening.
	The issues that have been set out tonight have already been the subject of a great deal of investigation by the relevant authorities. I am conscious that a number of the issues raised are still under consideration by both the procurator fiscal and the civil courts, and therefore it would not be appropriate for me to comment on those. The issues raised also relate closely to the decision-making process for planning applications in Scotland and to economic development policy in Scotland. It is important to recognise that these matters in Scotland are devolved and are properly for the relevant local authorities, the Scottish Government and their agencies. I can therefore offer no comment on the merits or otherwise of the applications in question.
	With regard to the responsibilities and accountability of civil servants, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. However, there are proper processes in place. The civil service code, first published in 1996, sets out the core civil service values and the standards of behaviour expected of civil servants in upholding these values. A Scottish Executive version of the civil service code was first published in 2006.
	On 11 November 2010, the civil service provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 came into force, placing the civil service values on a statutory footing. Under the terms of the 2010 Act, a revised civil service code was laid before the UK Parliament on 11 November 2010 and is available on the Cabinet Office website, and a revised separate code of conduct governing civil servants who serve the Scottish Executive was laid before the UK Parliament and Scottish Parliament on 11 November 2010.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, he pursued the matter also with the then head of the civil service, who fully investigated the matter.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Having worked in the property industry, I know that Mr Gallagher has something of a reputation for being what in Moffat would be called a wide boy. Is the Minister satisfied that the code covers the culture of behaviour, as well as the actions?

David Mundell: I am satisfied that the terms of the code are appropriate and are appropriately administered. As the hon. Gentleman knows, complaints regarding the Scottish Government and their agencies which have gone through those organisations’ own formal complaints procedure can also be raised with the Scottish public services ombudsman. It is for the public services ombudsman to deal with these matters, and it is right that the appropriate avenues are used. The Scotland Office does not have any locus in such matters and it would not be appropriate for us to take on any investigatory role in relation to these matters.

Michael McCann: Having served for a considerable time in my career as a full-time trade union official in the civil service, and having represented people who work in Scottish Enterprise, I know how the procedures operate. In the situation that I described, I made a formal complaint to the head of the civil service that someone, as I set out in my opening address, committed a serious disciplinary offence. No action was taken whatsoever, and he was allowed to leave the service with a handsome package paid for by the taxpayer. Those questions have never been answered. Therefore the question that I must put to the Minister is how am I to pursue such questions to a logical conclusion when all I got from the civil service was a brick wall constructed in front of me and my questions not being answered?

David Mundell: As I set out in my opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity this evening to place all his concerns on the record. I undertake to ensure that a transcript of tonight’s proceedings is conveyed to all the relevant parties that have been discussed, including Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Government, Sir Peter Housden, the Information Commissioner, and the current head of the civil service, Sir Bob Kerslake, so that everyone who has an interest in the matter can read the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. However, the Scotland Office is unable to take forward further investigations. Indeed, it would be inappropriate to do so while a criminal investigation and civil court proceedings are taking place. As I have said, he has used the important opportunity of an Adjournment debate to place his concerns on the record.

Ian Murray: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has concluded his speech.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.